|
Didn't they also make a big stink about meeting the queen on the recent trip to the UK so that they could get photo ops of CCP officials shaking hands with her? As in, they literally threatened to cancel the entire trip if they didn't get to meet her?
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 18:51 |
|
|
Mustang posted:I don't understand what China is trying to accomplish in regards to Hong Kong with the White Paper they released last month. All it seems to have done is show that China is untrustworthy and pushing Taiwan even further away. Beijing probably get an idea that Taiwan will continue to vote for moderate president that won't push the envelop of declaring independence and at the same time they (Beijing) realize Taiwanese people very little to incentive to united with China politically. In other words, Beijing may want to push for continued economic integration, but politically stay status quote. Also, Taiwan becoming part of China in a new loose confederate is a double edge sword for China. Whatever political freedom China give to Taiwan they likely have to give to Xinjiang and Tibet. That's not a good deal for Beijing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
I used to think China was a bit more savvy at the diplomacy long game but now i'm certain China is acting like an irrational party in the scheme of things. The media claims that recent regional hijinks (spratley, etc..) were done to prove that the U.S. is rather impotent in the region but to what end? China was already winning the regional economic and to some extent the soft power game before it started to antagonize everyone. Now the SEA nations involved and Japan are starting to talk up military alliances and militarization.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
synertia posted:I know the guy who runs Hong Wrong, Tom. He's a character. Tom Grundy? Character as in ... ? Fojar38 posted:Didn't they also make a big stink about meeting the queen on the recent trip to the UK so that they could get photo ops of CCP officials shaking hands with her? As in, they literally threatened to cancel the entire trip if they didn't get to meet her? Yes. Any mention of Hong Kong or human rights in a uncharacteristically Chinese way also merited the scrapping of a trade deal for Cameron.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Mustang posted:A friend of mine has been living in Taiwan for a few years now and from I've heard from him the young people in Taiwan seem to be overwhelmingly against reunification. Yes. Mustang posted:I was also wondering if China had effectively given up on acquiring Taiwan. No. e: whatever7 posted:Beijing probably get an idea that Taiwan will continue to vote for moderate president that won't push the envelop of declaring independence and at the same time they (Beijing) realize Taiwanese people very little to incentive to united with China politically. At this rate, the next president of Taiwan is highly likely to be from the pro-independence DPP. (KMT) President Ma's approval rating is 9%. Of course, there's 2 more years til the election, so we will see. whatever7 posted:In other words, Beijing may want to push for continued economic integration, but politically stay status quote. No, they want to use economic integration to make Taiwan more reliant upon China and push for political talks. Political interactions between mainland China and Taiwan are becoming MORE frequent, not less. Higher level officials are making the visits now. This JUST happened: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-28012272 China is most definitely not interested in maintaining the "status quo". That's what Taiwan wants (really-- that's what the KMT wants because that's the best they can do. If there was no threat of war, Taiwanese would overwhelmingly prefer independence.) quote:Also, Taiwan becoming part of China in a new loose confederate is a double edge sword for China. Whatever political freedom China give to Taiwan they likely have to give to Xinjiang and Tibet. That's not a good deal for Beijing. Why would you think that? Xinjiang and Tibet have nothing to do with Taiwan. The historical background is quite different. Tibet is a region with its own ethnic group, language, religion, etc., that is politically under the control of China. It's also arguable that Tibet gets something out of it (economic development). Taiwan is essentially the same ethnic group as Chinese people, with the same language and a similar culture, but they are politically completely independent and have very little to gain from unifying with China. hitension fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
Modus Operandi posted:I used to think China was a bit more savvy at the diplomacy long game but now i'm certain China is acting like an irrational party in the scheme of things. The media claims that recent regional hijinks (spratley, etc..) were done to prove that the U.S. is rather impotent in the region but to what end? China's ability to play the long game diplomatically is mostly a myth. Partly it's born of orientalism, partly from a mistranslation of a comment by Zhou Enlai, and partly it's because of Western hubris assuming that anyone who switches sides to Capitalism is on the right side of history and will naturally end up a liberal democracy. Kissinger met with Zhou Enlai before Nixon's trip in 1972 and in the course of two diplomatic giants making conversation he asked Zhou what he thought about the French Revolution. You know, the 1789 one. The translation wasn't perfect and Zhou thought Kissinger meant the Paris student riots earlier that year, so he replied "Too early to tell." which quickly made it into US foreign policy circles as proof of the inscrutable oriental's mysterious and far-sighted way of thought. If you look at China's foreign policy over the last 50 years it tells a very different story. Mao pissed off the Soviet Union for literally no good reason and left China swinging in the wind for 20 years until Nixon scooped him into the Western camp, then the 1989 massacre burned up all the goodwill Deng had generated and left China in limbo with no allies again. They've talked a good game about peaceful rise and become more and more aggressive with their neighbors. On the institutional side, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (not sure about the official English name) is widely considered the weakest ministry in the government. State has to defer to Security and to the PLA on pretty much everything. So in a very real sense China's Department of State analog is not at all in control of their foreign policy, much less articulating and guiding an overarching long-term strategy. I think you could say that the last time China had a well-articulated foreign policy strategy was under Deng Xiaoping (bless him) when they really were serious about peaceful rise. Now if China has an overarching foreign policy strategy it's at the mercy of shifting political tides and may exist in half a dozen different brains in Beijing rather than as a coherent institutionally effected policy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
hitension posted:...At this rate, the next president of Taiwan is highly likely to be from the pro-independence DPP. (KMT) President Ma's approval rating is 9%. Of course, there's 2 more years til the election, so we will see. quote:No, they want to use economic integration to make Taiwan more reliant upon China and push for political talks. Political interactions between mainland China and Taiwan are becoming MORE frequent, not less. Higher level officials are making the visits now. This JUST happened: I think Beijing doesn't believe the "One Country, Two Systems" is a realistic goal anymore, that's why they have taken the kid gloves off HK business. They don't care if HK affairs will set off negative vibes to the "One Country Two Systems" propaganda. Think about it, even if China become a democratic state tomorrow, why would Taiwan want to become part of the China, where its not even the 2nd most important province/region? Being a nation state comes with a lot of benefits, Taiwan pretty much enjoy most of these benefits without officially called a country. quote:Why would you think that? Xinjiang and Tibet have nothing to do with Taiwan. The historical background is quite different. Tibet is a region with its own ethnic group, language, religion, etc., that is politically under the control of China. It's also arguable that Tibet gets something out of it (economic development). Taiwan is essentially the same ethnic group as Chinese people, with the same language and a similar culture, but they are politically completely independent and have very little to gain from unifying with China. But that argument doesn't work. Xinjiang/Tibet have greater ethnic difference to the rest of China so by that logic they should have more autonomy than Taiwan. Tibetans can easier argue they were politically independent for longer time than Taiwan. Tibet was ruled by China from 1950s on ward. Taiwan was directly ruled by the central government from middle of Qing dynasty to the end of 19th century. whatever7 fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:In talking with a mainlander whose educated opinion I very much respect, I've been convinced that China doesn't give two fucks what Hong Kongers think and have been riling them up with this crap in order to impress the mainland population. Serious question, do you, or your friend think the incredible petty news like toddler street making GBS threads was brought up by the HK media entirely, or there was some secret mainland agenda that try to steer the division between the mainland and HK public opinions?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
I definitely think that was the work of the local media. Although I certainly think it plays into the government's divisive agenda. But no, the Apple Daily uses that poo poo to gather eyeballs and it works so well that now all the news outlets that aren't official pro-Beijing rags have hopped on the bandwagon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
So Hong Kong Fox News played right into the hands of the Beijing propaganda machine?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
It's more like their interests are surprisingly aligned. Both of them benefit from having a divisive Mainland-Hong Kong relationship.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:I think Beijing doesn't believe the "One Country, Two Systems" is a realistic goal anymore, that's why they have taken the kid gloves off HK business. They don't care if HK affairs will set off negative vibes to the "One Country Two Systems" propaganda. I think we actually agree here: Taiwanese do not have any reason to want to be part of China except for a handful of people with ethnic/nationalistic/racist notions of a greater Chinese nationality. Those people are mostly old and dying off. (Have met a few young crazy people, but that's like saying the USA still has white supremacists/KKK, it's still not a mainstream concept nor is it flourishing) So, yeah, Taiwanese people do not want to be part of China. What you quoted was me writing on a completely different issue. I stated that, regardless of rationality/feasibility, China still desperately wants to "bring back" Taiwan by any means, and nowadays they view the best means as economic subversion. quote:But that argument doesn't work. Xinjiang/Tibet have greater ethnic difference to the rest of China so by that logic they should have more autonomy than Taiwan. Tibetans can easier argue they were politically independent for longer time than Taiwan. Tibet was ruled by China from 1950s on ward. Taiwan was directly ruled by the central government from middle of Qing dynasty to the end of 19th century. In practice Xinjiang/Tibet do not have autonomy nor the capability of asserting autonomy, while in practice Taiwan is completely independent. I mean, Taiwan is literally just its own country and it's kinda absurd that news articles and the like bring up Beijing's claim to Taiwan as anything more than just a fantasy. I am sure Tibet and Xinjiang would like to have their own autonomy too but there is no reason to think that Taiwan coming under Beijing's administration would make it possible for conditions in Tibet/Xinjiang to change. Or, what makes you think that gaining MORE control and power (in this example, over Taiwan) would make Beijing willing to give up power elsewhere (in this example, over Tibet)? hitension fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:If you look at China's foreign policy over the last 50 years it tells a very different story. Mao pissed off the Soviet Union for literally no good reason and left China swinging in the wind for 20 years until Nixon scooped him into the Western camp, then the 1989 massacre burned up all the goodwill Deng had generated and left China in limbo with no allies again. They've talked a good game about peaceful rise and become more and more aggressive with their neighbors. It seems like Deng really wanted to fix massive institutional problems in China but that once he was gone the mentality shifted back to control the status quo. Instead of addressing long term problems in infrastructure, social polices, economies, etc. China is just doubling down on its nationalism and demanding everybody else play by the rules it sets or it'll take the ball and go home. Or for a more salient example, China want's everybody playing Monopoly to use Chinese made up rules(anyone who's played Monopoly must have done this at one point) or they'll flip the board. pentyne fucked around with this message at 07:32 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure Taiwan serves a similar purpose to the mainland as Hong Kong. It's just another nationalist sounding board that is much more useful under the status quo than if it was actually reunified.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
Imperialist Dog posted:Tom Grundy? As in a poster on this board? If you are not, he wears chicken suits to events and is a character in the common sense that people mean, I guess. Not as a pejorative.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 08:40
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:I'm pretty sure Taiwan serves a similar purpose to the mainland as Hong Kong. It's just another nationalist sounding board that is much more useful under the status quo than if it was actually reunified. I agree, I don't think reunification is on any realistic person's agenda in either country. I think the status quo will persist until everyone who cares* is dead. Or until China undergoes another political upheaval. *Mainlanders will be taught they should care and party members will have to say they care and they will not try to change the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 09:10
|
|
|
I think the most likely solution to the Taiwan Problem is that someday one-party rule on the mainland will collapse and the country will democratize or turn into an Ork Warboss Nightmare Land or something and Taiwan will declare independence and that'll be that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 09:13
|
|
|
Or the US's ability/willingness to utilize its military will crumble until it's no longer a credible threat and China will just do as it likes, take Taiwan by force, and it won't matter what anyone else wants. And I don't mean that in the Fox News, neo-Yellow-Peril way, I mean more of a... new isolationism in the aftermath of the wars in the Middle East and growing domestic problems. Though Bloodnose's prediction is probably the more likely one to come to pass.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:Continuing on the present path and taking current trends into account, the Chinese by 2050 will rival the Ork Boyz in both aggression and technology. Bloodnose posted:I think the most likely solution to the Taiwan Problem is that someday one-party rule on the mainland will collapse and the country will democratize or turn into an Ork Warboss Nightmare Land or something and Taiwan will declare independence and that'll be that. Maybe take a break from Warhammer 40k.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 09:31
|
|
|
Maybe a break long enough to draw some PLA Mekboy fanart.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
Mainland China does look like it was built by Orks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 09:58
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Mainland China does look like it was built by Orks. Bullshit, if it was sheer belief in the power the party would keep the bridges from collapsing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 10:06
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:I think the most likely solution to the Taiwan Problem is that someday one-party rule on the mainland will collapse and the country will democratize or turn into an Ork Warboss Nightmare Land or something and Taiwan will declare independence and that'll be that. The trick with this is that as the CCP's hold on power gets more unstable, the more likely it is to do dumb poo poo in order to produce a rally around the flag effect. Right now, there's no real "need" to do something like trying to take the Diaoyus or invading Taiwan, but if things are crumbling you might as well going down swinging.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 10:08
|
|
|
I was just wondering if there was any information that would shed light on Tom Grundy's writings beyond "he's a journalist".
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 12:22
|
|
|
I guess activist would be a better term.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 12:56
|
|
|
hitension posted:... I am not talking about getting close politically. I am talking about the end game of "One Country Two Systems". If, for the sake of argument, Taiwan reunite with China and change the flag to five-star flag, and obviously still retain the freedom of voting for their own "province president", then the Uyghurs in Xinjiang are going to ask for the same thing. They are going to kill more cops to fight for it. You might think CPP is a ruthless political machine. But keeping the message consistent is still very important to the CCP. Bloodnose posted:I think the most likely solution to the Taiwan Problem is that someday one-party rule on the mainland will collapse and the country will democratize or turn into an Ork Warboss Nightmare Land or something and Taiwan will declare independence and that'll be that. That scenario is actually one of the weapon CCP use to rally the nationalism sentiment and glue the country together politically. The Taiwan issue is a stability factor. Although it was a lot more likely in the pre-911 political climax than now. whatever7 fucked around with this message at 14:14 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:I think the most likely solution to the Taiwan Problem is that someday one-party rule on the mainland will collapse and the country will democratize or turn into an Ork Warboss Nightmare Land or something and Taiwan will declare independence and that'll be that. Was just debating this scenario today. It's the only realistic scenario I can think of that sounds favorable to me. The ironic part is, if China democratized/became less crappy, it'd actually probably start to be in (some) Taiwanese people's interest to unify or at least maintain really close relations whatever7 posted:I am not talking about getting close politically. I am talking about the end game of "One Country Two Systems". If, for the sake of argument, Taiwan reunite with China and change the flag to five-star flag, and obviously still retain the freedom of voting for their own "province president", then the Uyghurs in Xinjiang are going to ask for the same thing. They are going to kill more cops to fight for it. You might think CPP is a ruthless political machine. But keeping the message consistent is still very important to the CCP. By that logic, people in Xinjiang should be fighting for the rights given to Hong Kongers right now
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
The Dalai Lama has literally said that he wants Tibet to have the same rights as Hong Kong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:The Dalai Lama has literally said that he wants Tibet to have the same rights as Hong Kong. So according to the white paper, that would be zero rights?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
hitension posted:
Hence white paper says only people who "love China and love Hong Kong" can be Chief Executive candidate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:So according to the white paper, that would be zero rights? Oh please. Hong Kong as a city state may not have a democracy but they have economic independence, freedom of speech/internet, etc. Hong Kongers JUST organized a massive protest with hundreds of thousands of people. Do you think that could happen in Lhasa?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
hitension posted:Oh please. Hong Kong as a city state may not have a democracy but they have economic independence, freedom of speech/internet, etc. Hong Kongers JUST organized a massive protest with hundreds of thousands of people. Do you think that could happen in Lhasa? I know it certainly couldn't happen in a place here and there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
It'd be interested if China democratized ala Taiwan, where the former dictator's party manages to live on. The same sort of thing happened in Korea, didn't it? After the war, the ruling elite weren't proscribed at all, to the point where the former dictator's daughter is now president. Even Russia still has its communist party from the old days, though it's mostly a puppet for the russian nationalists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:It'd be interested if China democratized ala Taiwan, where the former dictator's party manages to live on. The same sort of thing happened in Korea, didn't it? After the war, the ruling elite weren't proscribed at all, to the point where the former dictator's daughter is now president. But Korea/Taiwan already had institutions in place for a liberal democracy like the legal system and property ownership, didn't they? The only thing that really changed was they stopped putting people in political prison and stopped rigging elections. From what I understand of China all political institutions would basically have to be trashed. Like the CCP is written directly into the PRC's constitution and legal system, how do you fix that? How did this happen in Russia? What did they do with the legal system, for instance? Did they just throw out the Soviet institutions completely and make a new constitution from scratch? In any case Russia is about as far from a success story as it gets, so that doesn't bode well for China icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 04:24 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
Well the Soviet Communist Party was banned in 1991 after the failed coup so the modern Russian Communists aren't quite the same thing, it was formed a few years later. It's also kind of funny that they want to emulate the success of the Chinese Communist Party. All in all it seems quite different than its predecessor and seems mostly to exist as the designated opposition party.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
If "Russian democratization" happened in China after 1989 then they probably would lose Xinjiang. Probably can keep Tibet since shamanic buddhists are easier to bully. I don't think its that big of a deal if China lose Xinjiang. I heard the quality of the oil wells are pretty low. China can go back to the old great wall border, and say gently caress all to the minority policy
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
China fragmenting along ethnic and linguistic lines would be kinda neat. I'd visit the Canton Republic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:If "Russian democratization" happened in China after 1989 then they probably would lose Xinjiang. Probably can keep Tibet since shamanic buddhists are easier to bully. There is a ton of shale gas in the Tarim basin, letting that get away would be not be too smart given how important energy issues are going to be for China over the next century and beyond. It's sort of funny how China's much of China's resource wealth is located in non-Han Chinese areas, oil and gas from Xinjiang, rare earths from Inner Mongolia, and of course China's biggest source of foreign currency during the Communist era was the Daqing oilfield in Heilongjiang (ok, Dongbei is mostly all Chinese now, but that's a recent development).
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:China fragmenting along ethnic and linguistic lines would be kinda neat. I'd visit the Canton Republic. Cantonese is not really a ethical group, despite the linguists insist Cantonese and Mandarin are two different languages. I am all for Republic of Pearl River Delta. Wait that name is not cool enough, we will rip off from Neal Stephenson and call it Coastal Republic of Greater Canton. Of course the capital need to be in Canton City (name change back from Guangzhou). Flag and emblem will base on the stuff from the King Nanyue tomb excavation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 18:51 |
|
|
Ethnicity is totally a social construct and the Cantonese are different enough from other Han subgroups that if they so chose to they could self-identify as an ethnicity and no one would question it. Hakka are perhaps an even better example of a group that are officially Han but could very, very easily be considered a separate ethnicity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 15:33
|
|