From: cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Chunde Shi)
Subject: Re: Is TI so rossy?
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Lowell Computer Science
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:15:50 GMT

In article <86652@ut-emx.uucp> joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang) writes:
>In article <C16EIE.2qs@ulowell.ulowell.edu> cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Chunde Shi) writes:
>>Only demand mainland wants from Taiwan is that
>>Taiwan recognize Mainland government as sole government of China, Taiwan is 
>>part of China.
>
>Many mainlanders think that current mainland government ought to be
>changed.  Given that this is the case, I don't think that it is likely
>that you can convince Taiwanese to recognize the current Mainland
>government as having any authority over Taiwan, even if this authority
>is mixed with promises of autonomy.
At least, that can be the start point for talking. Taiwan refuses talking.
unless, Mainland see Taiwan as "Equal entity", which I do not think that is
realitic, rather an excuse for delaying contact.
>
>>As to the difference in the political and economical system across the Strait
>>need not to be a obsticle for above purpose, unless people involved want to
>>make it an issue.
>
>But it's impossible not to make it an issue.  If the People's Republic
>allows a local multi-party democratic government to exist on Taiwan
>(or Hong Kong), the question will arise as to why it will not allow
>such a government to exist in Beijing or Hunan, or why it will not
>allow an all-China government to be founded on those principles.
Mainland government still think her system may be better, at least can be made
obvious better by certain degree of justification. I looked back into history
of Germany, Soveit, China, and currently situation around the world. I become
more and more agreeable with their argument. there is always a need for balance
of free compitition and equality. The line is not obvious, especially not
defined by two simple concept of Socialism and Capitialism.
>
>>As to Taiwan's system, you have to filter out the factor that
>>U.S. provided massive aid and more importantly market, to be able to
>>objectively talking about so called "Taiwan experience". 
>
>The United States has not provided economic aid to Taiwan since the
>1960's, and as for markets, who is buying a lot of Cantonese products
>now?
I am contending about the credits. I am trying to point out what are real
factors for success besides foreign influence. Free market, right of property,
democracy are not enough, if you look at those lartin America nations. What is
missing?
>
>The basic problem with "one country, two systems" is that Taiwan and
>the Mainland have too many fundamental similiarities for there to be
>any real reason to have two systems, either political or economic.
I am sure one is better than the other as whole picture, which one? Different
people with different experience will have different conclusion. I do not
think those who favor mainland system should be marginalized. It is very hard
to convince Capitalism superority to those who had be starved before 1949, had
friends, relative killed, saw China bullied by Westeners. Why not let it
Mainlanders to prove themselve?
>
>>I agree, but that is only "soft" mechanism. Some kind of agrement may
>>nail it down and make it impossible for TI and can argument more forcefully
>>against any nations attemp to split China.
>
>All the Mainland has to do to kill TI is to recognize the Republic of
>China (perhaps in some confederal Greater Chinese Community).  The
>only remaining (and in my opinion incorrect) argument that TI now has
>is that "one China, one Taiwan" is the only way Taiwan can participate
>in international affairs without compromising its security.  Once that
>argument goes, there's nothing left, and Taiwanese politics will be
>influenced by other issues (such as the relationship between business
>and government).
I do not think Mainlanders hate any specific people. We only try to mentain
China's integrity.
>
>>China
>>become major target for West to go after, no matter what China does. That is
>>a conclusion I draw from my observation, and from past West history.
>
>If the West is foolish enough try and take over China now, it will
>lose.  In the nineteenth century, the West had the temporary advantage
>of being industrialized while China was not.  Even under those
>circumstances, the West was never able to colonize China in the way
>that Africa and India were colonized.
>
>Today, the West still has a technological advantage, but it is not
>decisive enough to allow the West to overwhelm China.  Furthermore,
>that techonological advantage is disappearing rapidly, and we are
>rapidly approaching the point in history in which there will be more
>reason for the West to be afraid of China than there will be for China
>to be afraid of the West.
I agree thing will not go that serious. But Westen nation do be able to take 
advantage of a accross Strainght War. Dumping Weapons to make billions,
ecourage others to snatch China's land from other direction, etc.
>
>>Chinese leadership are more aware what is going on than outsiders
>>think. 
>
>A leadership that is aware of what is going should have been able to
>figure out a better way to deal with mass demonstration than by
>sending in tanks.  There certainly lots of people in the top
I agree on this part!
>leadership who realize what is going on, but they are keeping their
>mouths shut for now, after what happened to Zhao Ziyang and Hu
>Yaobang.
I do not think the experience of the above two figures can be used as any
arguments for situation in China. Individual can be victim or benificiry of 
history, It is important not to expect any rewarding from politics at end.
 It is not enough to be
a leader for only having good intentions, excelent capacity. Outsid world tend
to romanticize China's politics, good guys, bad guys staff, for lack of info
and for that will be easier for Westen populatin to digest.
>
>>There was a poll month ago, 60% of  Chinese are satisfied economically,
>>50% politically. I do not know how poll was conducted, how the question
>>was phrased. But it did give some hint on Mainlanders's public opinion.
>
>One of the problems with shooting demonstrations in the name of
>restoring order is that afterwards, in becomes very, very difficult
>for the government to figure out what people really think.
It wasn't that bad. The Mainland government give pretty pragmatic explanation
for the crack down. People are not so afraid as West media depict, unless
you want to stir up "turmoil" in China.