From: changhp@engin.umich.edu (Hsiou-Ping Chang)
Subject: Re: DATA: largest world economies
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 16:21:25 EST
Organization: The University of Michigan
Reply-To: echang@engin.umich.edu
Originator: changhp@fijan.engin.umich.edu


In article <1992Dec15.174417.23589@athena.mit.edu>, joe@athena.mit.edu (Joseph C Wang) writes:

> 
> >	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.
>
	In your previous posting, you were trying to convince me there
was a possibility for dual recognition if we use ROC.  Now you understand
this possibility dosen't exist.
 
> >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. 
> 
	So you agree with me ROC is not better than Taiwan.

> >	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.
> 
	Really?  How about Tienmen Square?
	U.S. and Japan will support the pursuit of welfare and freedom
of the Taiwan people.

> 
> 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.
	
	I consider the risk that someday PRC will declear Taiwan has
to unify with it, or it will use force.   I consider the risk that
PRC will keep on demanding Taiwan to do whatever it wants, including
do not change name to Taiwan.
	I consider the benefits that Taiwan's pursuit of freedom and
democracy will be appreciated by the international society, and without
the obstacle of double recognition of two Chinas, some of the democratic
countries will want to develop formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan
even though the protest of China

> 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.

	Please recognize what people in Taiwan want you to recognize.
I appreciate your kindness.


> 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.
> 
	No. It's not because China prevents other countries from making
friends with ROC.  It's not because China forbids the effort that
people in Taiwan want to get more involved in the international society.
It's hurting NOW.

> 
> 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.

	If that's true, (I deeply hope), Taiwan is no worse.
The cooperation between these two states is to the benefit of the
whole world; Taiwan need not to be part of China to glow.

> 
> 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.
> 
	Note that during my past postings, I seldom used ROT because
it is not the name that has been determined by people of Taiwan.
People of Taiwan probably will prefer just  "Taiwan."
Anyway, my point has been Taiwan should represent herself.
The threat from China is there, it is inevitable.  If you read my
postings carefully, I am not proposing to declear Taiwan overnight;
instead, our steps should be very prudent.

What I am trying to do is to form a consensus among Taiwan  and
friends of Taiwan people that there is a need to represent ourselves 
using the name in our best benefits.  If the consensus can be reached,
we can then discuss how to do it prudently and carefully. 

> 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.
> 
	I didn't say that.  I proposed that the threat is there,
It's up to us to determine what we, people in Taiwan, should do to
our best benefits.  I suggested that we should not be intimidated
by the threat from China when we are planning our future.
Surely, we should take the China factor into account, but never base
our plans on the threat of China.

> 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."
> 
	Except ROT, that's very true.  Actually some countries refused to
 endorse the notion that "Taiwan is a part of China" requested by PRC
 in the process of negotiation of the official documents, because they
 were aware of the fact that Taiwan had been actually an independent state.

> 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.

	Judge by yourself to see if these statements are true or not. 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan