UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

It might require a subscription. I will copy and paste some chunks.

But the point is not that we have been somehow losing to China. In this matter, it is the long-term relationship we have with them that is important. So this is bigger than any single issue (although all would be complicated if the relationship goes sour).

The "one China" policy we have has one goal: To maintain stability across the Taiwan Strait.



China Really Isn’t Joking About Taiwan

Beijing needs those fussy diplomatic protocols to control the raw and dangerous emotions of its own citizens.

By James Palmer
December 5, 2016

China Really Isn’t Joking About Taiwan

There’s a reason Donald Trump’s impetuous conversation with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen has left foreign-policy experts tearing their hair out by the roots. The fussy diplomatic protocols Trump flouted, in this case, are not a mere formality. They are a finely honed coping strategy for Chinese emotions that are very raw and potentially explosive. Although the Chinese reaction has been surprisingly — perhaps hopefully — muted, there is no more sincerely sensitive issue in China, among politicians and the public, than Taiwan.

Taiwan, or the Republic of China, was founded by the fleeing Kuomintang (KMT or “Nationalist Party”), the modernizing but corrupt, authoritarian, and incompetent rulers of China in the 1930s, after they lost the mainland to the Communist Party, the modernizing but corrupt, authoritarian, and incompetent rulers of China from 1949 to the present. They fled to the conveniently defensible island on China’s southern margins, once famous as a haven for pirates and later a Japanese colony.

The republic still claims to be the legitimate successor to the Chinese state, as does — with considerably more force behind it nowadays — Beijing. Both are publicly committed to the idea of a single China; they merely disagree vehemently about which one it is. (That’s the public position, anyway; millions of Taiwanese, especially the young, are willing to acknowledge the possibility of full independence.) In the past, Taiwan was even more revanchist about the borders of China than Beijing; it refused to acknowledge the existence of Mongolia until 2002 — 91 years after Mongolia broke away from the flailing corpse of the Manchu-ruled Qing dynasty that also controlled China.

The whole thing is a giant mess of political fictions and competing histories. China’s historical claim to the island is far sketchier than its own propaganda makes out, as with vast stretches of the country’s border regions elsewhere; its argument that a democratic state should surrender its sovereignty to a distant and unloved tyranny is deeply unconvincing. A forcible invasion would be a publicity disaster for China and maybe also a military one; its plan has always been to push for long-term political reconciliation, which seemed to be on course until the upstart Democratic Progressive Party in Taiwan disturbed the comfortable relationship that the Chinese Communist Party and KMT had developed in recent years. But that doesn’t make the divide any less painful or the feelings of most Chinese any less real.

In China, it’s not an avoidable issue. When I worked in English-language Chinese state media, the importance of using the “correct” vocabulary for Taiwan was hammered into staff on a regular basis. The reasoning behind some decisions about the correct form, made decades ago, was opaque; “mainland China” was verboten, for instance, but “the Chinese mainland” was fine, and it was the “Taiwan question,” not the “Taiwan issue.” It was more obvious why Taiwan couldn’t have a president, although “leader” was acceptable.

A little before I arrived at one newspaper, there had been a small witch hunt to find who was responsible for this sentence: “The paper factory is the largest in China and the second-largest in the world.” After two days of investigations, the guilty Chinese reporter was fined about a third of her monthly salary, had to write a self-criticism letter, and strict protocols were put in place to make sure such a disaster was avoided in the future. Why the problem? The largest paper factory was in Taiwan, and so the sentence — copied unthinkingly from a foreign source that didn’t suffer from such sensibilities — was dangerously splittist.

In moments of particular stress, “Taiwanese” was forbidden, the adjectival form believed to imply unacceptable separatism. I would strenuously point out that “Californian” implied no allegiance to the Bear Flag Republic and that our many references to Sichuanese, Henanese, and Yunnanese had not yet meant a return to the Warring States, and eventually sanity would usually prevail.

Like a puritan’s sexual fears, the obsession with belittling Taiwan’s status actually ends up drawing constant attention to it. Sentences such as “Taiwan’s so-called ‘president,’ Tsai Ing-wen, addressed the so-called ‘legislature’ of the Chinese island of Chinese Taiwan, a province of China, yesterday” regularly deface articles in Chinese newspapers. The fixation isn’t limited to the media. Chinese customs confiscates globes and atlases that have the effrontery to show Taiwan in a different color from the mainland. Chinese education officials tear Taiwanese adverts out of conference booklets. Chinese students throw hissy fits at Taiwan being listed as a country at Model U.N. events.

And there’s the real problem. This isn’t just a set of political restrictions imposed by a paranoid party — one that has always been obsessed with controlling and contorting language. It’s bone deep in mainland Chinese, a conviction drummed into them by childhood and constantly reasserted. Plenty of elements of party propaganda are inconsequential to most Chinese or even mocked. Taiwan isn’t one of them.

I have lived in China for 13 years, and in that time I have talked with perhaps three mainlanders who thought that Taiwan had the right to determine its own future. Everyone else with whom I’ve discussed the issue, from ardent liberals to hardcore Marxists to the politically apathetic, has been fervently against the idea that Taiwan could ever be considered a country. It’s an idea as weird, taboo, and offensive to the majority of Chinese as proposing the restitution of slavery would be to Americans — not for its moral value but for going against everything they hold dear about their country.

Most of the time, when Beijing says something has “hurt the feelings of 1.3 billion Chinese,” it’s petulant bullshit; on Taiwanese issues it comes closer to the truth. On the WeChat Moments feed of a former student, a bright and intellectually curious teenager, I saw her rage at finding the Taiwanese flag on the wall of a dorm at her new American university. “IT’S NOT A COUNTRY!” she indignantly declared, her anger echoed by her (Chinese) schoolmates follow-up comments.

This is, of course, a deeply unthinking attitude. It’s a product of decades of propaganda about China’s (real but century-old) humiliations at the hands of foreign powers. It arises, too, from a complex of neuroticisms and resentments about Taiwan’s wealth and success in the past, now mixed with smugness at the mainland’s new power. And for ordinary Chinese, it’s a result of the constant lessons — beginning with kindergarten rhymes and reinforced every week by their parents, peers, and teachers — about China’s supposed oneness and the evil of those who would split the country.

It’s an unhappy and bitter part of Chinese nationalism, one that denies both the six-decade reality on the ground and the agency of Taiwanese to decide their own future. But it’s not going to disappear overnight. If the Communist Party vanished into smoke tomorrow, Chinese would still be contemptuous of Taiwanese aspirations and furious with anyone who suggested otherwise.

On America’s part, the issue needs to be handled carefully, respectfully, and with a certain allegiance to diplomatic fictions. Anything else risks stirring not just Beijing’s ire but genuine public anger — a force that Beijing itself might sometimes manipulate but may also not be able to entirely control.


Link: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/05/china-really-isnt-joking-about-taiwan/

are making noise for their political purpose. "Trump may be ignorant of the protocol", "Trump maybe seek luxury hotels business in Taiwan"... These are typical campaign attacking words.

BTW, all the left media I saw so far are intentionally misleading by inaccurately translating China's Foreign Minister's response.
NPR:
China's Foreign Minister: Trump-Taiwan Call 'A Small Trick'
Usatoday
China: Trump-Taiwan president call was 'small trick'
The Guardian
China dismisses Trump call with Taiwan as 'small trick'

But what China's FM actually said is, Tsai Ing-wen (Taiwan president)'s phone talk, a small trick by Taiwan side, won't change existing global view towards one-China policy.

The MSM intentionally left out "by Taiwan side", so that they can mislead the readers and listeners to think in China's eyes, the "small trick" was played by Trump.

There is no doubt that China know there will be some changes with Trump presidency coming and will test Trump by real action, just like they did on W 15 years ago when they caused the incident that led one Chinese pilot died and U.S plane being forced to land in China due to collision. China will test every tough leader from u.s. by actual actions, not by words war.

"Trump is a buffoon who is winging it with phone calls and no advice from from experts. If only we had the layered subtle sophistication of Obama to manage these delicate issues, blah, blah, blah". Armageddon.

Look at what the Amateur has wrought in foreign policy, and tell me that we don't need to go in a different direction.

Laughable.

This is not the media reacting here.

It's foreign policy 101, Baron.

(no message)

Link: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/12/04/why-trump-was-right-to-talk-with-taiwans-president.html

This is not "lib outrage." This is genuine concern by people who understand that the US-China relationship is the single most important one for the 21st century, and that our pres-elect might be on the road to seriously fucking it up.

Hope the link below works. It might help you understand why the entire foreign policy community is horrified, not just "libs."

Trump is not taking his daily intelligence briefing. I can't explain why not. But Jesus, are we in for it.


Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/world/asia/taiwan-call-gives-china-a-clue-on-what-to-expect-from-donald-trump.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share

(no message)

Link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2016/12/04/the_real_risk_behind_trump039s_taiwan_call_397081.html

You love claiming Reagan was all in on this deal, yet as this 1986 LATimes article will show you, Ronaldus Magnus was quietly funneling not just billions in military aid, but ale the equipment for the Tiawanese to continue to arm themselves.

Reagan pissed the Chinese off in a big way, as Trump will if he acts in the best interests of our country also.

One of the few things that I can credit Obama with is the insistence to continue to supply military arms to Taiwan, though 1.2 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to what they need at today's prices.


Link: http://articles.latimes.com/1986-07-06/opinion/op-23272_1_united-states

Like your Dear Leader, you are aggressively ignorant and immune to learning.

Instead your partisan defenses come up, as if this is a partisan issue, and as if Reagan's actions relate somehow.

There is no point in talking with you.

it would appear that your definition of being "immune to learning" involves not coming to agree with your viewpoint. If this definition were reversed, has there ever been a time that you have "learned" and come to my viewpoint? How do you se yourself as any less "immune to learning". Why can't you carry on discussions where sides disagree with out coming to your viewpoint?

RCP is a clearinghouse, without an agenda. It accepts op-eds, but usually just links to opinion pieces from around the country.

Reminiscent of "Dewey Defeats Truman", but worse. They absolutely hate Trump.

The fact that the article originated with the New Yorker hurts your case even more. You have to have a very good filter to read their articles if you expect to get news information from them.


Link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/new-york-magazine-cover-brands-trump-as-a-loser-145721078.html

(no message)

You don't see a difference between a "delegation" and their president?

Maybe you don't. But Beijing does.

the US has agreed not to acknowledge Taiwan's autonomy officially. Words, like phone calls of congratulations or delegations at inaugurations mean nothing to China. Actions mean everything. Words only matter to liberals, and China has played us for a long time because this kind of policy.

Only the left could pretend to see the Trump acceptance of a simple phone call of congratulations from the Taiwanese president when he is not even officially the president yet as significantly worse than the invitation of an entire Taiwanese delegation (short only go the Taiwanese president) to the official presidential inauguration of Barack Obama.

Also, if you are honest enough to admit it, you would acknowledge that your news sources never even mentioned this little fact, and that my post was the first that you had ever heard of this fact.

We have threaded that needed since the beginning of the One China Policy, one that Reagan and the 2 Bush Presidents followed, FWIW.

China has never liked that we sell Taiwan weapons but they deal with it because (a) they are mostly older weapons; (b) they are mostly defensive weapons; and (c) China remains confident it could obliterate Taiwan regardless of the sales.

We agree with (c) so why do we do it? To extend some military and political influence in a region dominated by another power. TPP would have done the same thing.

Reagan had the Chinese plenty pissed off because of all of the aid he was giving them under the table.

This is such a none-event. But what little it does mean is refreshing.

I know you aren't this dense.

(no message)

(no message)

Yeah, I thought so.

China's rise has nothing to do with this policy but with its population and stage of economic development. I know you know this but are trying desperately to find a way out of this argument but I won't let it go.

(no message)

Hence the inauguration attendance.

It's the President that has been the policy.

And the call was scheduled, not some random jingle.

because in the end, it's a meaningless phone call. But where the left is hand wringing with apologies, the US needs to deal from a position of strength.

China will take exactly as much as you give them. This was the Amateur's problem. While I think this event was initiated by Taiwan, it is a excellent opportunity to send an early clear message that things are changing in Sino-American relations which have become drastically one-sided. Trump isn't technically even the president yet, so what does China have to do? They lodge a complaint with the outgoing WH. It was a minor event, but the Chinese come out of it looking weaker, and they get an early message about how the noes order will look.

Just like I wanted W to improve relations with Cuba and Obama much before he actually did.

But let's not act like this was some well thought out move or part of a grander plan. Bolton is against the policy and showed up in NY and convinced Trump to have the call.

And China doesn't look weaker or stronger. They will be stronger though when we back out of TPP.

(no message)

(no message)