From: joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china,soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: People who pursue democracy and human rights.
Date: 23 Jul 92 02:19:32 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.china,soc.culture.taiwan
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <21JUL199215453762@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu> laiichung@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu (L. D. ROPER) writes:
> As a matter of fact , TI is going stronger after 1986 , when KMT began
> its political reform , and even stronger after opening travel to China.

What Fengteng Chang calls "class B" TI (diplomatic recognition for
ROC) has gotten stronger after 1986.  "Class A" TI (Republic of
Taiwan) is dying very, very quickly.

I have no great objection to "class B" TI because "class B" TI can
without much trouble be turned into "class B" unification.

> The other point, how would you say about the independence waves these
> days?  Do they suffered the racial-discrimination as Africa and Asia?

The Eastern Europe independence wave is driven more by economics than
anything else.  Croatia and Slovenia wanted to secede from Yugoslavia
because they were tired of being bled dry by Serbia and wanted to
attach themselves further west.  The Baltic States also wanted to
secede for similar reasons.

By the way, I don't see why TI keeps arguing with me on this point.
The whole point of my original post was to say that TI developed for
legitimate reasons and should be accorded some respect because of that.

If I get attacked so much for making a statement somewhat sympathetic
to TI, I might not be so eager to make such a statement the next time.

> From your point , Africian Americans will search for Independence state
> in USA , but they didn't and don't

Look up Marcus Garvey.

> There are many aspects of TI movement , but the most common ground is they
> want Taiwan to be indept politically and diplomatically. 

I believe that the Republic of China should be recognized as a
sovereign state, politically separate and diplomatically independent
from the People's Republic of China, yet considered to be part of "big
China."  This "big China" could be formalized through some
"trans-national" organization similar to the European Community.

I further believe that with this situation, steps should be actively
taken to increase economic, cultural, and in non-local matters
political ties between the two states in order to further strengthen
the "big Chinese community."

The purpose of this mutually recognition is that I feel it will hasten
the day when the border between the two states is irrelevant and help
bring forth a "unified" society.

Now if you think this is Taiwan Independence, then stop arguing with
me and people who share my beliefs.

Now you don't think this is Taiwan Independence, explain why not.

(Most "unificationists" don't object strongly to my beliefs.)

> If Taiwan is that strong that Taiwan can affect China in the way Taiwan want,
> then Taiwan can be an indept country without problem.

That's not how "interdependence" works.  "Interdependence" means that
both sides are weak and both sides are strong.

If PRC thinks about attack ROC, ROC can pull its investment and
capital out of Southern China.  This will greatly hurt the Mainland
economy.

If ROC thinks about seceding from "big China", PRC can kick Taiwanese
investment out of Southern China.  This will greatly hurt the
Taiwanese economy.

It seems that the best solution is for PRC to stop thinking about
attacking ROC, and ROC to stop thinking about seceding from "big
China."

> If Taiwan needs China more China needs Taiwan as some people said 
> "The future of Taiwan is in China", then how can Taiwan affect China 
> in Taiwan's favorite way?

It's not that one side needs the other more, it's that both sides have
a lot to gain it they both "cooperate" with each other.  PRC by not
attacking ROC.  ROC by not declaring independence from "big China."

Based on what Mitch Yang said, I think that the Taiwanese people would
find this solution acceptable.  Mitch Yang said that most Taiwanese
don't care very much if Taiwan is part of "big China" or not, as long
as the Mainland doesn't invade Taiwan.  I agree with his view.  

A majority of Taiwanese are neutral toward the idea of "big China" and
will support or reject this idea based solely on practical considerations
(Will it help the Taiwanese economy?  Will it improve Taiwan's security?)

A minority really likes the idea for idealistic reasons.  A minority
really hates the idea for idealistic.  Neither side is likely to
change their minds.

If the majority who are neutral could be convinced that a "big China"
is in their interest, then they will support it.  This would involve 
showing that "big China" will improve Taiwan's economy and security.

So far, this is what has been happening in Taiwanese elections.  The
minority idealistic "pro-big China" and the majority neutral people
have cooperated to send the KMT back into office with huge majorities.
In the short run, TIers will claim victory for "class B" independence.
In the long run, what will happen is that the Mainland and Taiwanese
societies will become increasingly interlinked and all "independence"
will mean is an extra seat in the U.N. 

For this to change, TIers would have to convince the large neutral
majority that "independence" would improve their security and economic
conditions.  Judging from the postings of the past three years, I
don't think this is likely.  Arguments for "independence" and against
"big China" tend to be based on history or dignity or to use the
strawman that "big China" must be synonomous with the PRC.

The TI/"big China" issue has been trashed around more or less openly
for about two years.  I don't think that there are too many new
arguments available.  With the existing arguments, the Taiwanese
people have chosen against TI and for a "status quo" policy which,
which although some TIers call "class B independence," will in the
long run surely lead to unification.

Unless something dramatic happens in the political situation (and both
KMT and CCP have an interest to make sure that nothing dramatic does
happen) this is the way it is going to be.

> What happen if CCP holds power for next 300 years? 

The CCP is looking more and more like the early KMT, and the same
thing that happened to the KMT will likely happen to the CCP.

> Or the succeeding goverment is even brutal than  CCP?

If a "crazy government" (like the stupid Serbian one) comes to power
on the Mainland, then Taiwan is doomed.  We all have an interest to
see that a "crazy government" (or at least one no more crazy than the
present one) doesn't come to power.

> Will Taiwan still wait?

Wait for what?  By increasing people-to-people contact, Taiwan is
helping to create "big China" now.






Newsgroups: talk.politics.china