| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 12/25 |
| 2004/4/2-3 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Taiwan] UID:12991 Activity:high |
4/2 Taiwan forming its own identity, apart from China -SJ Mercury News
http://csua.org/u/6qg
\_ how powerful is Taiwan's military? Who'll come to Taiwan
support if China invades Taiwan?
\_ currently strong enough that China can't risk a failed invasion.
the US will.
\_ Is Taiwan recognized by the U.N.? But how did this happen
when China is in the security council?
\_ Taiwan Relations Act
\_ Who cares what the UN recognizes?
\_ it's not the UN, it's every single darn country in
in the world including the USA, with the exception
of a few banana republics in the 3rd world part of
of the americas.
\_ which "it" are you refering to? As long as the US,
Japan, and the EU are willing to trade with you, it
doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.
\_ Didn't we cover all of this, yesterday?
\_ I read somewhere that Taiwan's military is strong enough to
defend itself for a few weeks. At any rate, if China seriously
wants to take over Taiwan, it can do so easily. It's just a
question of how they want to be perceived by others. The Chinese
question of how they want to be perceived by others. The CHinese
government feels insulted by the Taiwanese government so they
gotta act tough. By they also won't attack Taiwan just because
they don't want other people to perceive them as an aggressive
nation.
\_ Okay, mano a mano, China can most likely beat Taiwan. I don't
think anyone ever said the opposite. They won't attack Taiwan
because of U.S. power; China would like its own citizens to
believe that it's not attacking Taiwan because of its great
benevolence, which is not a real problem given its propaganda,
censorship, and punishment machine.
\_ I am fucking tired of this worn topic, so here is for you
to know. 1) China does NOT have the capability to invade
Taiwan in the near future. 2) China does HAVE the ability
make the life in Taiwan miserable for the foreseeable future
and beyond without actually using much of a military force.
\_ My post counters all the assertions of the previous post.
\_ No, it doesn't. Your post makes unfounded assertions
no different than the one you respond to above.
Your post ... just seems to be angry.
\_ Can some anti-Taiwan-independence person explain to me why wanting
independence for its own sake is a bad thing? Surely we have
some people on the motd who don't want an independent Taiwan,
otherwise this topic wouldn't keep coming up. -- ilyas
\_ ha, that'll get a predictable response. haven't you heard all the
"inseparable part of china" stuff? expect a civil war reference.
|_ We were proud being Chinese till the damn Westerners
humiliated us in the past 200 years. We're sick and tired of
seeing your corrupt big white penises^H^H^H^H^H^H^H military
power in our ass and we just want to show you that we're not
the stupid, unsophisticated savages you portray us to be. At
any rate, we want unification so that we will eventually kick
you ass like we did centries ago.
\_ You are showing us already...
\_ unification won't help. your entire culture is pointed in
the wrong direction to overtake the US or even the EU. if
China had the same military as the US they'd have already
taken over the world so you can put away the America bashing.
\_ Nah, when China's mighty fleet sailed the seven seas under
admiral Cheng Ho, it didn't invade or occupy any country
even though it could easily do so. Chinese is just not
interested in barbarian lands cause they smell bad. Only
barbarians invade other people's lands. Chinese prefer to
allow the barbarians to voluntarily join the Great Chinese
Civilization but only after they learned to civilize
\_ *hahahahhahahahhahahahahahaa*!!! too funny! Let's go
share some boiled pigs knuckles and watch a few
hundred drug dealers get executed in public right after
we perform a few forced abortions on the outlying farms.
\_ You are showing us already...
taken over the world so you can put away the America bashing.
themselves.
\_ I already answered the question yesterday. let's put it this
way. taiwan already has de facto independence under the
current status quo. why risk economic war or military war
with prc for "official independence". taiwan is already paying
a huge economic price in terms of lack of direct links with
prc and the military arms race with prc, and the various self-
imposed limits place on its companies in terms of investing /
setting up shop in the prc. taiwan shares the same language as
prc, and taiwan businessmen are thriving in prc. the tv
shows, movies, music, food all have huge overlap. why risk
all that just to gain the independence "name", which still
will not be recognized by all the major countries in the
world? there is nothing necessarily wrong with taiwan
independence per se, just like there is nothing necessarily
wrong with say Hawaii independence, but in practice it is
not worth it. Now, most people from the prc would disagree
with this view. they believe taiwan is part of an
unfinished civil war. they also believe that taiwan is in
many ways a pawn of US and Japan, even though they would admit
that the flow of investment, technology, management expertise
from taiwan to prc has benefitted the prc tremendously over the
past 20 years. add to that the long history of japan and western
bullying of china (as the "big white penis"-guy above
pointed out), and taiwan independence becomes unacceptable
at any cost. on the other hand, many prc people, or at
least those in the us, recognized that taiwan is in most
ways more advanced than the prc, and that war is the last
resort, and status quo is the best, and prc should learn
from taiwan in many ways. why don't you tell us what is the
criteria one should use in weighing the merits on whether
a territory should become independent?
\_ You are talking about the international games of chess. China
doesn't want US influence to expand, etc. Do you have a moral
argument against the independence of Taiwan (assuming a
majority of Taiwanese want it)? I don't care about the rest,
because the rest is soulless bullshit. -- ilyas
\_ soulless bullshit? you don't know what the fuck you
are talking about. We are talking about real lives
in the real world, not one of your silly little
pseudo intellectual head games.
\_ Just like the founders of this nation. They spilled
blood and most ended poor or dead from our war of indep.
from England. Just some silly little head game over
tea taxes, eh?
\_ yea, they spilled blood just like the southerners
spilled blood during the civil war. if you want
independence, blood will be spilled. Also, unlike
US vs far away England, taiwan will still have to
live with a hostile neighbour 100 times its size.
\_ With real acknowledged independence they will be
out from the ever present shadow of the evil PRC.
The constant threat of invasion and the
uncertainty of their future status is a big long
term drag on the economy which hinders foreign
investment and growth. If their status were
finally resolved the newly free Taiwan would make
the current Taiwan look like the 3rd world.
pseudo intellectual head games.
from England. Just some silly little head game over
tea taxes, eh?
tea taxes, eh?
\_ yea, they spilled blood just like the southerners
spilled blood during the civil war. if you want
independence, blood will be spilled.
Like I said, taiwan already has democracy and
freedom. what additional benefits will independence
bring? what are the risks and costs?
\_ Ok, let's try this again. Say there is this
hypothetical island in the pacific, where the majority
of the population wants to secede from the big
continental Paterland. The big continental Paterland
doesn't want this, for a variety of realpolitik reasons
which I understand. Aside from those reasons, the moral
argument against the independence of the island is...?
-- ilyas
\_ I don't know about a "moral" argument, but how
about the fact that Taiwanese people suck just
as bad at government as Mainlanders? In fact,
historically Chinese stink at government.
\_ What are you trying to say here, that the
Taiwanese (and Chinese) are incapable of governing
themselves well, and need strong foreign
leadership? -- ilyas
\_ No, just that it doesn't really matter
if they're independent or not, things
are going to suck. What they need isn't
foreigners, they need a truly great
\_ Welcome to World History. Enjoy your
stay. -- ilyas
leader to emerge, the likes of which
they've seldom had in their thousands of
years of history.
\_ I'm just asking for clarification.
years of history.
Their world spanning empire collapses into
anarchy until the next superman emerges a
\_ These "great" leaders are mostly known
for wars and conquests. I don't think I
want one of them drafting me into his
glorious army.
few hundred years later?
\_ So you're saying the entire Chinese culture
is simply broken and they need a superman to
save their pathetic useless asses? And what
happens after this mythical superman dies?
Their world spanning empire collapses into
anarchy until the next superman emerges a
few hundred years later?
\_ Welcome to World History. Enjoy your
stay. -- ilyas
\_ you didn't know the Chinese culture was
broken? people realized it back in the
last century.
\_ If a truly great leader emerges, I want him
here where I live. Those are rare!
-- ilyas
\_ let's say 49% of the population do not wish to
secede. Also, say, the population of Paterland
have fought many wars and sacrificed many lives
in defense of the island (whose population was
originally happy to be part of Paterland since
they are from Paterland) against invaders who
after taking the island, also invaded other
parts of Paterland, exploiting the island for
supplies, etc. for its war effort, killing millions
of Paterland people. Let's say big amounts of
wealth from Paterland has been used to help
develop the island over many years ... by the
way, if I live in wisconsin, does that mean I
have no stake in say florida, or do I have a
stake there too since it is also part of my
country?
\_ Only about 20% of Taiwan population came from
China during the 20th century. Immigration
patterns don't prove very much. At one point,
the vast majority of Americans were of British
descent. That Paterland provided for
the island's security at one point is irrelevant.
That's like saying if a girl dates a guy, and he
gets a bloody nose protecting her, she has to
marry him and stay with him forever. What if
she no longer likes him?
If you live in Wisconsin, it's frankly none of
your business if Florida wants to secede.
-- ilyas
\_ really? so even though americans fought
to protect hawaii from the japanese during
ww2, it doesn't count for anything, and hawaii
can just dump the US if it chose to do so?
Also, say, as an american, I like the freedom
and choice to be able to move around the
country. for example, say, I want to work in
illinois, and retire in florida. you are saying
this freedom of mine can be taken away? Also,
I like to visit the national parks of this
country, but some random territory can just
declare these parks to off limits to all
other americans besides the locals? do you
even know what it means to be a nation?
\_ As far as I am concerned, nations are
voluntary things. If people can't leave
it's a gulag, not a nation. If Floridians
decide they want to strike it on their own,
and close their borders to tourists, that's
their right. You don't have a right to
wander through other people's backyards,
if they don't want you there. -- ilyas
\_ so north taiwan can declare indepen-
dence and become a separate nation
from south taiwan, or maybe remain
in status quo, or even rejoin china?
\_ If they want, yes. -- ilyas
\_ so if I declare my ranch to be
a one person nation and then
let russia place an icbm here,
there is no problem right?
\_ no, you can't. you're not a
large enough entity to survive
since you'll be landlocked, have no access to seed, water, _/
fuel, fertiliser, trade partners, medical care or anything else
without passing through US territory you exist at the whim of
the US which makes your 'nation' no different than being a
citizen-slob like the rest of us. pay your taxes and shut up.
\_ As far as I am concerned
you have a right to
secede by default, and
the burden of proof is
on the other party (in
this case the US). Of
course, per the link I
posted below, US will not
allow secession, since
democracies are destroyed
by secessions. -- ilyas
there is no problem right?
independently. you can declare
anything you want but even if
the US let you secede you'd
just starve to death. since
of the US you *are* a part of
if you don't like it, you can always
leave the country. and no, nobody's
the US (in effect) thus your
secession is meaningless. pay
your taxes and stop wanking.
you'd only survive at the will
of the US you *are* a part of
the US (in effect) thus your
secession is meaningless. pay
your taxes and stop wanking.
\_ why will I starve to death?
I can just grow food on
my plot of land and
live well. hundreds of
millions of subsistence
farmers all over the world
do that.
\_ no a nation is not a voluntary thing.
it is a shared thing owned by all
\_ I don't know. I think we need
a few hundred years and better
tech for the kind of government
I would be happy with. Your
argument can also read: "What
makes you say US will be
successful with so many hostile
non-democracies stomping
around?" -- ilyas
\_ The answer to your question
is already answered by you.
The US federal government
forces everyone to work
together for the greater
good whether you want to or
not. In a libertarian
system what is your method
of common defense? Intern'l
trade? Transport? Border
protection? It's here and
now without needing Star
Trek tech to make it work.
\_ They don't necessarily rely on it.
Usually they want to be part of
a larger group so as to have more
power and benefits. If they were
too fragmented they'd also be
vulnerable to aggressive non-
democracies as you say. I think
that if the South had successfully
seceded, it would have altered
world history but not necessarily
anything so terrible. The key is
the "states' rights" issue which
e.g. in Europe will always be
important. I believe USA founders
intended a lot more state power
and less federal. It's also pretty
clear that Californians would be
better served by being split into
at least 2 states.
\_ It depends on where you draw
that line. Some splittists
want to draw that line north
of the SF Bay Area.
backyard is florida. backyard is the
citizens. no it is not a gulag because
small patch of lawn behind your house.
if you don't like it, you can always
leave the country, or work to change it
for the better. and no, nobody's
backyard is florida. backyard is the
small patch of lawn behind your house.
\_ Here is a good read on ethics of
secession:
\_ of course it's the US navy. once the Korean War started,
the US 7th fleet is ready to defend taiwan, and prc indefi-
nitely postponed all plans for invading taiwan. Lots
of Taiwanese communists then were ready to help the prc from
the inside if prc invaded.
\_ Why did the PRC not chase the KMT to Taiwan immediately?
Because they couldn't. The USN came much later and now
it's too late. Without fighting it, no one can say if
the PRC can take Taiwan or not without US helping Taiwan.
Even if the US backed out now, I don't see the PRC going
in for at least 10-15 more years. They don't have the
air force, the navy, the troop transports, and most
importantly, the logistical capacity to launch a large
scale amphibious invasion. DDay wasn't just luck.
"inseparable part of china" stuff? expect a civil war reference.
-- ilyas
you can't defend yerself for just to prove a point
that's no longer a point.
It's fun to watch people who follow too. -- ivy
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/secession.html
Interesting point: democracies rely
on suppression of secession. This
is one of the reasons I dislike
democracies (and why there is tension
between libertarian ideas and
democratic ideas). There are some
other goodies on that site worth
reading. -- ilyas
\_ uhm, what is your governmental
preference if not democracy? you
think a purely libertarian form
of government is viable in a world
with so many hostile non-libert.
governments stomping around?
\_ I don't know. I think we need
a few hundred years and better
tech for the kind of government
I would be happy with. Your
argument can also read: "What
makes you say US will be
successful with so many hostile
non-democracies stomping
around?" -- ilyas
\_ It gotta be the funniest thing if you say Taiwan can defend itself.
It's the dumbest thing to do to pick a fight
you can't defend yerself for just to prove a point
that's no longer a point.
It's fun to watch people who follow too. -- ivy
\_ This is historically and factually incorrect. If Taiwan was
unable to defend itself or more correctly if the PRC was capable
of taking over Taiwan at any point in the last 50 years they
would have. What stopped them from following when the KMT losers
fled the mainland and continuing their winning civil war on the
island and being done with it? It wasn't the US Navy....
\_ of course it's the US navy. once the Korean War started,
the US 7th fleet is ready to defend taiwan, and prc indefi-
nitely postponed all plans for invading taiwan. Lots
of Taiwanese communists then were ready to help the prc from
the inside if prc invaded. |
| 12/25 |
|
| csua.org/u/6qg -> registration.realcities.com/reg/login.do?url=http://www.mercurynews.com%2Fmld%2Fmercurynews%2Fnews%2Fworld%2F8337378.htm News Sports Entertainment Business Technology Lifestyles Classifieds Jobs Cars Real Estate About The Mercury News About the Real Cities Network Terms of Use & Privacy Statement About Knight Ridder Copyright . |
| web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/secession.html The ethics of secession The ethics of secession Is secession wrong, and if not, who may legitimately secede? This is a brief review of the specific ethics of secession, especially in relation to democracy and nationalism. Do you live in a western society, and do you want to be treated as a crank? Then suggest establishing a new state with a new political system. And preferably, suggest it should be on an artificial island, and write the constitution yourself. On the other hand, if you suggest establishing a new nation state, for an existing but oppressed ethnic group, you will not be treated as a crank. But if you survive that phase, you might end your life as president of the new state - with airports, streets, and mountains named after you. This is the paradox of secession which deserves attention from political theory. Looking at history, national secessionist movements are relatively successful. Not all of them achieved their aim, but considering the magnitude of their demands, the vehemence of opposition, and the bloodshed they usually engender, they seem a successful type of political movement. Yet in the same historical perspective, non-national non-ethnic secessionist movements are a total flop. Now, if anyone can secede at any time, that means the end of the state, the government, on the usual definitions. And not just of tyrannies and gulags, but also of nice democratic governments. The explanation might be simply the fear of bloodshed and chaos - anarchy in the most negative sense. This does not explain why national secession has been relatively successful: it is possible to take an ethical position that all secession is wrong, but evidently very few people do. Distinctions are made, and conditions are set, but some secessions are accepted. So the ethics of secession here means both the claims made about secession, and the question of whether these claims are right or even consistent. A democratic regime assumes a demos - a unit of political decision-making which is constant between decisions. If every dissident minority secedes after every opposed decision, then there is no democratic regime. There would be no political regime at all - at least not for standard political theory. So democrats have concluded, like President Lincoln in the 1860s, that secession must be suppressed. Since modern democracies are nation states, secession is now treated as an issue of national unity, and national identity: Lincoln was one of the last politicians who had to address secession as a classic political issue. Today he would talk about culture and identity - like the revived southern secessionist movement in the United States. Democrats no longer advocate force to preserve the demos, because nationalists do it for them. The nationalists advocate force to preserve the territorial integrity of the nation, which coincidentally is also the demos, the political unit. In this way, the nationalists get the bad publicity, not the democrats. Nevertheless, those who advocate democracy are also logically advocating, that at some point secession be suppressed. And almost inevitably, that implies the use of force - military force. An entirely pacifist democracy might work for small homogenous groups, but not for large states with hundreds of millions of inhabitants. A large democratic state, with no armed forces, would be overwhelmed by secession. One democratic theorist who represents this darker side of democracy is Lea Brilmayer. Her essay on secession and self-determination is a charter for anti-secessionist force and therefore inevitably for anti-secessionist atrocities. Separatists cannot base their arguments on a right to opt out because no such right exists in democratic theory. Government by the consent of the governed does not necessarily encompass a right to opt out. It only requires that within the existing political unit a right to participate through electoral processes be available. Lea Brilmayer 1991 Secession and self-determination: a territorial interpretation. Her ethic of democracy is clear: we let you participate in the demos, therefore we are entitled to keep you in it. But it is equally possible to reverse the approach, and ask if any political regime ever has a right to prevent secession. More specifically, if there is a universal right to prevent the formation of a new state by secession. Political philosophy generally ignores this issue - which can also be formulated as a question about how many states there should be. At present there are 180 to 200 states, depending on exact definitions. And for liberal-democratic political philosophy, that seems to be enough. Lea Brilmayer puts it like this: When a group seeks to secede, it is claiming a right to a particular piece of land, and one must necessarily inquire into why it is entitled to that particular piece of land, as opposed to some other piece of land - or no land at all. Lea Brilmayer 1991 Secession and self-determination: a territorial interpretation. This is not an accurate picture of the present geopolitical reality. A non-ethnic secessionist group might not claim any particular piece of land, but just some land, somewhere. However, it will belong to some state: there are no more undiscovered, uninhabited islands, at least not of any habitable size. Since about 1950, all land area is claimed by some nation state, often by several nation states. Artificial islands are disproportionately prominent in neo-secessionist proposals, but no large-scale proposals of this type were ever implemented. Secession is the only real method of new state formation, and a prohibition of secession is equivalent to a veto on new states. As a general principle every state-forming secession is legitimate, unless there are specific reasons to reject it. These could be ethical objections to the state itself, or to the means of state formation, especially population transfers. Libertarianism itself is a primarily Anglo-American political ideology: it derives from the English tradition of anti-state protective liberalism. Although the idea seems to be going out of fashion, US libertarians especially have proposed new states on artificial islands. Sometimes these are misleadingly called new nations, although there is no pre-existing national community. These should not be confused with projects for new structures in sea, as a form of property development. In the Netherlands there are several plans for new islands and peninsulas along the coast, replacing the traditional form of reclamation by enclosure dike. Such projects do not have the intention of creating a new state: they fall under the sovereign territory of an existing state. They may be explicitly designed to fall within a particular sovereignty, as in Monaco and Macau. Both of these semi-sovereign territories have run out of land for development: that is the only reason for expensive construction in sea. These property developments are real construction projects, with real investors, and using available technology. In the case of ocean islands - necessary to evade the 200-mile economic zones of existing states - the construction technology is not yet developed. Although the projects are justified with general libertarian arguments of individual sovereignty and limited government, one factor stands out. Libertarian new state proposals are primarily intended for tax avoidance. There is a thin line between tax avoidance and tax evasion: the proposals evoke the semi-criminal image of existing tax havens. Some are no more than investor scams: the financial logic is absent. Why build a floating Liechtenstein, when there is a non-floating version available already? And if international fiscal pressure is eroding the traditional sovereign tax havens, why would it stop at an artificial island? The libertarian proposals have been unable to present any other economic logic for new island states. For most industrial or service activities, they would far more expensive than a land location. Leaving aside the tax-avoidance aspect, the free market will not lead to the construction of such projects. And of course libertarians would be horrified by the ... |