From: nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Is TI so rossy?
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:04:23 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.

In article <C1JKyF.Fqy@ulowell.ulowell.edu> cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Chunde Shi) writes:

>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.

This is a *very* unfair characterization.  (And I'm not even a supporter of
the current Taiwanese government.)  Taiwan has offered, a number of times, a
truce to officially end the civil war.  Beijing refused.  While I don't think
that the entire responsibility lies with Beijing, I have to say that to say
that Taiwan has "refused talking" is a very unfair characterization.

>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.

But the current Chinese communist system has *neither* free competition nor
equality.  That's the problem.  (Nor does it have a balance of the two; it
has a balance of free competition and *dictatorship*.)

>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?

Can you be clearer on this point?  What are you trying to say?

Besides, most Latin American countries did not have free market *or* democracy
consistently.  Argentina, for example, had been run by military juntas until
just a few years ago.  Peru, which has an elected president, is really hardly
democratic either.

>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?

CCP has had 43 years to prove itself.  It proved itself atrocious.

>I do not think Mainlanders hate any specific people. We only try to mentain
>China's integrity.

I do not think Serbs hate any specific people.  We only try to maintain
Yugoslavia's integrity.

Yeah right.

>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.

*Which* western nation will be able to take advantage of a war?  As current
military strengths stands, Taiwan does not have much chance if a war happens.
It's somewhat similar (although not as much as) to the Iraqi ablity to conquer
Kuwait just a day after crossing the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border.  And please don't
tell me that western nations took advantage of the Gulf War to make billions
of dollars.

> 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.

I don't think that's the case; I think they tend to *depolarize* views of
China's leaders.  For example, I have a much more negative view of Li Peng
than most American reporters do, I'd 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.

So you buy their explanation?  Much as the Serbs buy Milosevic's explanation?