From: joe@athena.mit.edu (Joseph C Wang)
Subject: Re: DATA: largest world economies
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:44:17 GMT

In article <W2S=rH+@engin.umich.edu> echang@engin.umich.edu writes:
>Even we don't get any advantage for now, we have nothing to lose. 

You damage relations with the Mainland.  That's a lot to lose.

>	Your evidence shows nothing to me.  If your evidence is true,
>why there are no ROC embassies in US and Japan?

PRC objects.  As long as PRC objects, you have no embassies ROT or
ROC.

>Now it's my turn:
>	Let's be more specific.  Name the governments you think will recognize
>ROC but not ROT, and we can examine them one by one.   Don't tell me US and
>Japan.

None.  From the viewpoint of diplomatic recognition, recognizing ROC
is the same as recognizing ROT, and recognizing ROT is the same as
recognizing ROC.  Again I have not trying to show that ROC is BETTER
than ROT in gaining diplomatic recognition.  I only assert that ROC is
EQUAL to ROT in gaining diplomatic recognition.

The problem is this:
1) It's already ROC, why change if there is no advantage?
2) Damage relations with the Mainland.

>	According to your cost/benefit analysis:
>	Cost: PRC won't get any investment from Taiwan any more.
>	      PRC scare other investors away.  
>	      Consequently, PRC will slow down the growth rate.
>	Benefit: NONE, Taiwan is still Taiwan.

Benefit: No one will take PRC's threats seriously, if it fails to
carry them out.

>	There is no evidence show that US and Japan will not support
>the idea that Taiwan wants to represent Taiwan not China.  

U.S. and Japan will support anything PRC approves.  That includes ROT,
ROC, Republic of Island, or Republic of Mars.

>> it will result in the Mainland taking away "special treatment" for
>> Taiwan businessmen and punitive economic actions.

>	You are trying to threaten me again.

I'm not the one doing the threatening.  PRC is.  You wish to support
TI on pragamatic grounds.  If one looks at things that way, they one
has to consider all the benefits and risks including threat from PRC.
If I were in charge of PRC, I'd put an end to this argument by
immediately recognizing ROC.  Having recognized ROC, there would be no
reason for the Taiwanese electorate to vote for ROT.

But I'm not in charge of PRC.  I only can tell you what I think PRC
would do.  

>Tell me more about punitive economic actions
>and the consequences of it.  I'd like to know if Taiwan will suffer more
>than China. 

If PRC puts punitive sanctions into play, everyone will lose.  Both
PRC and ROC.  That's why, if it is possible, I think its a bad idea to
provoke PRC with a declaration of ROT, unless it brings EXTREMELY
large benefits to Taiwanese.  If there are no such extremely large
benefits (and there don't seem to be), then why do it?

>You are saying China is doing Taiwan a favor without any return.
>That is not a very realistic point of view.	

No.  I'm saying PRC can hurt ROC.  In hurting ROC, it will hurt itself
as much if not more, so that it is unlikely to do so, except in
extreme circumstances.  Declaration of ROT is provocative enough so
that it will hurt ROT, even if it means hurting itself.  Unless ROT
brings extreme benefits to Taiwan, declaration of ROT is not in the
interest of Taiwanese.

The situation now is good in that no side can hurt the other without
hurting itself.  That's why I don't think it's a good idea to change
it.

>Since neither ROT nor ROC will prevent PRC's invasion, 

Neither ROT or ROC will prevent an invasion if PRC decides to invade.
ROC makes it less likely that PRC will decide to invade.

>we are better off choosing the one to represent ourselves best---Taiwan -- and
>we have chance to become one of the greatest country in the world instead of
>being part of a country that we don't represent.

It is my firm belief that one of the greatest countries of the 21st
century will be a Chinese state which resembles the one that Sun
Yat-Sen outlined earlier this century, and I believe it is to Taiwan's
advantage to be part of this state.

In order to build this state, it is necessary to take into account the
beliefs and desires of people on both sides of this strait.  I
attempted to do so, and thus support a "two China" policy which I
believe is not only the best compromise which takes into account
Taiwan's security and economy, but also will lay a firm foundation for
creating the state that Dr. Sun has outlined.

Mr. Chang disagrees.  He and I differ on how we believe certain
institutions will behave.  It is highly unlikely that we will be able
to convince each other of our stands, so that only thing that we can
do is to agree to disagree and let the readers decide whose views are
closer to reality.

Let me attempt to summarize our differences (and if I have mistaken
Mr. Chang's position, he should correct me).

Cost of ROT: It is my position that ROT would damage relations with
the Mainland.  Not only would it bring up the possibility of
punitative economic and military sanctions, but it would result in a
closing of markets in the Mainland as Taiwanese businessman are
regarded as "foreigners."  This would not only harm the economy of
Taiwan, but it would also harm the economy of the Mainland.

It is Mr. Chang position that declaring ROT would result in no
difference in relations with the Mainland, because the costs of
carrying out sanctions would be too expensive for the Mainland to
consider.

Benefits of ROT: It is Mr. Chang's position that declaring ROT would
result in easier diplomatic recognition for Taiwan, as other governments
realize that Taiwan "is not part of China."

It is my position that most governments do not care if "Taiwan is part
of China or not," and that their attitudes toward Taiwan is shaped
largely by self-interest and a wish to maintain good relations with a
permanent member of the Security Council.  The name is largely
irrelevant.  In this case, NEITHER ROC OR ROT is a better name for
Taiwan from the view of diplomatic relations.


Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.china