From: liaohen@cbnews.cb.att.com (Heng-Hsin Liao)
Subject: Re: more than 50% support TI
Organization: AT&T Bell Lab
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:02:51 GMT

From article <1992Dec29.223454.432@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>, by li@sicvax.enet.dec.com (Tom Li):
> 
> In article <1992Dec29.180935.10717@cbnews.cb.att.com>, liaohen@cbnews.cb.att.com (Heng-Hsin Liao) writes...
>> ...
> ...
> The situation in Hong-Kong is very different from ours. That is why KMT 
> insists the Hong-Kong example can not be applied to us.
> 
> CCP's China said only if Taiwan declares independence she will use forces. 
> She is also against the idea of "Two Chinas" but never said she will use 
> forces on it. Therefore, The advantage of "Two Chinas" is that Taiwan can 
> disclaim her sovereignty of the Mainland territory to reflect the reality 
> but keeping "China" identity for possible future unification and also avoid 
> the war. In the meantime, Taiwan should simplify the political structure to 
> meet the need of the Taiwan island only. I think "Two Chinas" is a good 
> compromise and can pave the way to unification or independence.
> 

They don't say it not necessarily means they won't do it. Right? China never
said it will use force if HK keeps the same pace toward democracy as now.
"6 hours" is just a rumour. We are not dealing with a democratic government.
Anything is possible. It doesn't matter we are going for independence or
unification. We still need to prepare for a possible war.

One example, direct election for President is already a trend in Taiwan.
China also shouted that they cannot bear with it. It is equivalent to
independence. You think they are serious or just joking? Then what? Let's
give up the idea to prevent a possible war? Definitely not. It doesn't
matter what's their attitude. We do what we want and we need an
excellent defense system for all the people's sake.

> 
> Sadly HK people has little to say about their future. People in Taiwan do 
> have. But the issue is that do we really need to declare formal independence 
> at the risk of war since we already enjoy defacto independence.
> 

"De facto" implies "commonly accepted." Are we commonly accepted as an
independent country? Are we really enjoy the current situation?

> 
> My impression is that the KMT government has quietly shifted from "One-China" 
> to "Two Chinas" but have not openly talked about it.
> 

True, but China don't buy it and have always been disallowing it.

>>The problem is it takes both sides to define the form of unification.
>>That means we have no control to the result. It is at best a negotiation.
>>If you don't like China to dominate the result, do you really want to
>>give it a try?
> 
> Why not? If we cannot get satisfactory results then there is no unification
> and we have nothing to lose.
> 

I am conservative on "we have nothing to lose." The "cooperation" you
mentioned below might disappear. If we are talking about some 10-20 years
later, China might be able to get most of Taiwan's market share if
Taiwan is too slow on stepping further. China dominate Taiwan "peacefully."

>>The difference is here. For independence, we control the result and we
>>decide the time frame. I have to say it again and again that independence
>>won't be cheap. We need to pay for it. But the bottom line is that
>>we work hard to earn us and our offspring a better living on our homeland
>>ourselves. That's the true meaning of independence.
> 
> So does unification. I agree with KMT's unification policy, that is, there is 
> no timetable for unification and unification will come only when "China" 
> becomes a free, democratic, and wealth-balanced nation. Before then, keep two 
> sides separated but improve the relations. Anyone has problem with that?
> 

No timetable means "long term" I think. I prefer independence before "THEN"
because we have no control when it is going to happen. To keep "status quo"
for a long term is suicide to Taiwan. It blocks Taiwan from stepping further.
I have no problem with unification in the long term (say 50-100 years).

> 
> Yes, "two China" does have its own problem so does "Republic of Taiwan".
> Do you think when you declare "Republic of Taiwan" the recognition will
> flow into the island? I very much doubt it. The foreign country will still 
> have to consult with CCP's China. And even the worst, the war might have 
> started before the recognition. 
> 
> So the only difference between "two Chinas" and "formal independence" is the 
> possible war. My point is that is this war worthy to try for just the sake of 
> changing name? 
> 
> ...

I think your point is "Is it worthy to do something under the shadow of
a possible war." My point is "Is it worthy not to do something we want
under the shadow of a possible war?"

By the way, I think the war is always possible as long as we do things
against Beijing's will. The question is who are they and who are we.
This is different from looking for a good relationship with China.

> 
> Why we have to think the relations with China so negatively? As long as 
> China's economy progresses, the economic "threat" will come sooner or later 
> no matter we are ROC or ROT. But if we get along with China convert it to 
> "cooperation", will it be nice? I will not be surprised the political reform 
> in China will come soon after her economic success just like what it has 
> happened in Taiwan. By the time, China may be more willing to give in or 
> Taiwan is more willing to unify with China, who knows? Only "time" will tell.
> 

In my opinion, we need to do everything we can to get international
recognitions and get into international organizations. Through this
and people's hard working, Taiwan is likely to break through the
current barrier faster. China is taking over Taiwan's old market. We
need to have our new market like high value-added products. That's
the real "cooperation." If we were catched up by China someday, it
would become an "unfair competition." Taiwan would be in danger at
that time.

Heng-Hsin
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan