Taiwan tells China to piss off...

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ned
Mindseye, thanks for your post. But, this raises the question, in what way is China still communist at all?

He does make it sound more like a capitalistic leaning oligarchy doesn't he?

[DinoDoc]

How are things in the Xinjiang province, as a contrast to the coast, mindseye?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Ned
Mindseye, thanks for your post. But, this raises the question, in what way is China still communist at all?

Communism has become more like a religion here. Lots of people go to church, but few actually practice. I'm still trying to find a little red book that was blessed by Mao to ward away the foreign devils.

[Mr. Harley]

Urban Ranger said: What are you talking about? These are missiles, not unguided rockets. The arsenal now also include cruise missiles and long range ASM and anti-radiation missiles.

Okay, I put it poorly. The history so far of non-prescision guided missles having a significant impact on military operations is nil. The Chinese do not have a precision cruise missle with capabilities of modern US weapons - with submunitions and guidance within several feet of the target. Yes, the Chinese can put the missle in the vicinity of the target. Any kind of hardening will defeat it, and somehow I cannot see the Taiwanese military not hardening their military installations given the long history of China and various types of medium range missle, back to the Scud and Styx era (long range missles are germane to their relations with the US, not Taiwan except indirectly). The only significant military damage (without WMD) I can see the Chinese doing would be to runways immediately before they started the aviation campaign. However, since Taiwan would not be deploying heavy aircraft, even short intact stretches of runway would be sufficient to scramble their fighter force. Radar-anti-radar missles conflicts are usually decided by the side with the best electronics, and right now that is still Taiwan.

Your point about the missles and Taiwan's stock market are extremely germane. However, as other posters have eloquently put it, this would be cutting off their nose to spite their face, China would take a massive economic hit also. Then the issue I made about a unified versus factional party leadership come in to play. To misuse a phrase, "Golden handcuffs."

[Ned]

Originally posted by DaShi




Communism has become more like a religion here. Lots of people go to church, but few actually practice. I'm still trying to find a little red book that was blessed by Mao to ward away the foreign devils.

Certainly, with things going so well in China, the Communist Party must be extremely popular. They could, it seems, hold free elections and be re-elected in a landslide.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Ned


Certainly, with things going so well in China, the Communist Party must be extremely popular. They could, it seems, hold free elections and be re-elected in a landslide.

Which is what most CEE post-Communist states experienced, either in the first or in the second free elections. People are idiots

[Alinestra Covelia]

Well, they could always rig the elections. That worked fine for a while in ex-Soviet Europe, and many of the Central Asian countries are still doing that. Nepotism, oligarchy, and shameless use of family ties are a keystone of free market economics mixed with by-the-crowds politics, as G. W. Bush's own election suggests.

He seems to be doing okay though.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
Well, they could always rig the elections. That worked fine for a while in ex-Soviet Europe, and many of the Central Asian countries are still doing that. Nepotism, oligarchy, and shameless use of family ties are a keystone of free market economics mixed with by-the-crowds politics, as G. W. Bush's own election suggests.

He seems to be doing okay though.

I understand the commies stay in power in Cambodia by rigging elections there.

Ali, your description of the "new" China seems like a description of the "old" China prior to the overthrow of the last emperor.

Nevertheless, all this bodes well.

[Urban Ranger]

The U.S. State Department is urging Taiwan not to hold a referendum on independence from China.

Spokesman Richard Boucher says the United States will oppose any attempt by China or Taiwan to change the status of the island Beijing views as a breakaway province. He says the United States wants both sides to refrain from statements or actions that increase tensions or make dialogue more difficult.

VoA article

[Spiffor]

That's not a surprise.

The US has enough problems already, with Iraq being more of a drag than expected, and the Korea affair not sorted out. The US definitely not wants one more area of unstability to cope with.

I think the US will call for the Status Quo for about whatever issue that could further threaten world stability. At least, until the current messes are sorted out.

[Urban Ranger]

The way I see it, this is the US's way of saying, "We are not going to get involved if missiles start flying, so proceed at your own peril."

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The way I see it, this is the US's way of saying, "We are not going to get involved if missiles start flying, so proceed at your own peril."

The status quo would also mean for China to stay put and the two seperate governments to be left intact. Again, the US plays both sides of the fence.

[Drake Tungsten]

No, it's more "we don't want to spare the forces needed to back the Chinese down right now, so hold off on this independence talk until our strategic situation is better".

[DaShi]

Don't make me separate you two!

[mindseye]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How are things in the Xinjiang province, as a contrast to the coast, mindseye?

Shanghai is the pinacle of the capstone of a huge pyramid. Xinjiang is pretty far from the top.

Xinjiang has recently fared better than some of the other poorer western provinces in that it has valuable natural resources (oil) to be extracted. I have not been there yet, and can only give you my best impression from a distance. It seems that development is quickly gathering pace there, but that the Uighurs (the local caucasian minority, for those not familiar) are not getting a fair slice of the action taking place on their home turf. They can't get the good jobs going to better educated Han. In general the Han Chinese (at least around here) think of the Uighurs in terms almost identical to the way many westerners think of "gypsies" (i.e. colorful, musical but highly suspect outsiders who like spicy food and are liable to rob you).

I think their situation is not disimilar to that of many Tibetans. They are happy to see things improving so rapidly, but they are worried about their local culture being swept away in a tide of development and Han immigrants. They are not economically benefiting from the development like Han Chinese are. From what I gather I think the Uighurs dislike the Han more than the Tibetans do.

I hope to get out to those areas before long, and to see for myself.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by mindseye
China is the pinacle of the capstone of a huge pyramid. Xinjiang is pretty far from the top.

Then can we assume that the pics you've been posting are far from typical.

[Alinestra Covelia]

My mother, being one of those very rare creatures - a Muslim white American - recently went out to Xinjiang. She described the food as excellent but far too spicy, and she was not particularly impressed with the sanitation. Given that she's already gotten used to the squat toilets of Beijing's hutong back alleys, that's probably saying a lot.

She's even more of a pro-China thinker than I am, but she's also staunchly Muslim so that makes for an interesting dichotomy. I wish I'd been there with her to see her internal struggles as she saw Xinjiang.

She also said that she saw many people who looked white - they had blond hair and light skin. She asked whether they were foreigners and the response was no - they were just as indigenous as anybody else.

One of the few places on earth where I wouldn't look out of place, I guess.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Then can we assume that the pics you've been posting are far from typical.

Oh, no they are certainly not typical for Xinjiang, and I don't think I ever represented them as such. In fact, if you put your bifocals on, I think you will see that the photo was in a section prefaced with "Some contemporary indicators of urban life in China (lead by Shanghai):" I would have hoped that was sufficiently clear, sorry if it was not.

I edited the horrific mistake in the first line of my previous post (sorry, typed while stoned). I intended to say that Shanghai is the pinnacle of the capstone, sorry if my error caused you confusion.


The photo is, however, typical of a great deal of Shanghai, and to a lesser degree other urban areas. The eastern cities are the current Ground Zero of development. The gov't has decided it makes more sense to flash-develop the cities, then turn to the farms - a view I cannot argue with.

To give it some perspective, in a span of about twenty years China has moved a number of people equivalent to the popluation of the US from third world living standards to near-contemporary western levels. However, they "only" managed to do this for a few hundred million people so far, the ripples of development are only now gathering speed in the far reaches of the country, in places like Xinjiang. How it will pan out there is anyone's guess at the moment.

Change is happening everywhere, but there are great disparities in it's speed. I personally do not find this surprising nor objectionable, as long as there is a plan that includes everyone, which there seems to be.

I promise to post more photos soon, I have been taking many lately (that one was not mine, by the way).

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by mindseye
I personally do not find this surprising nor objectionable, as long as there is a plan that includes everyone, which there seems to be.

You get that from what? The startling pace of reforms discussed here.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You get that from what? The startling pace of reforms discussed here.

Uh, you mean the article that starts out:

CHINA can be justly proud of having lifted some 400m people out of poverty in the last quarter of a century.

Did I say somewhere that the income disparities were not a problem? I don't believe I did. In fact, in the sentence immediately preceeding what you quoted I said that "Change is happening everywhere, but there are great disparties in it's speed." (interestingly, you left that part out when you quoted me.)

When I say that I don't find the disparities objectionable, I mean that I don't fault the PRC for failing to raise all 1.3 billion people to near western living standards in the same twenty years. In fact, I expect disparites in such a massive undertaking. Has any other nation industrialized and developed at anything approaching the speed of China, and not experienced such disparities?

Your kind of criticism reminds me of those who belittled the recent manned space mission, as if China should have put a man on Mars in its very first go at space exploration.

[Ned]

mindseye, it seems that if movement from the countryside to the city were freely allowed with full social benefits, the cities of China, particually the Eastern cities, would soon be overwhelmed by the poor. In the US and most Western countries, the gradual urbanization of the population has be underway for more than 100 years. How is China going to cope with hundreds of millions of very poor, underemployed farmers?

Build factories in the hinterland?

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ned
mindseye, it seems that if movement from the countryside to the city were freely allowed with full social benefits, the cities of China, particually the Eastern cities, would soon be overwhelmed by the poor.

Which is exactly why the gov't tries (with some success) to restrict this movement. They are determined not to allow Chinese cities to develop peripheral rings of dismal shanty towns of the type seen all over the developing world.

In the US and most Western countries, the gradual urbanization of the population has be underway for more than 100 years. How is China going to cope with hundreds of millions of very poor, underemployed farmers?

Build factories in the hinterland?

I'm sorry, I can only give you a general answer on this topic. It's certainly one of the greatest challenges facing Beijing. Part of the answer is allowing the inevitable urbanization to proceed, but at a controlled level (versus tidal wave).

Meanwhile, they are starting to ramp up investment in basic infrastructure for the countryside. One of the reasons Chinese farmers are so poor is that their infrastructure is so under-developed. Many can only grow crops that can be sold within walking/biking distance of their farm. If they could get their crops on a truck to a neighboring city, they could access new markets and grow different and more profitable kinds of crops. This requires things like modern highways, as well as better education and business consulting.

Examples of how this can work are the farmers who have succesfully switched over to raising labor-intensive organically-grown vegetables, mushrooms, and herbs for export to Japan.

But this is only a part of the solution. Making the farmers more productive is great, but the sheer scale of under-employment in the countryside is (like anything in China) massive. And this doesn't even address the problems in the northeast "rust belt" where urban areas are already contending with large numbers of laid-off former SOE factory workers.

Beijing has been saying that develpment of the west must be a national priority. How succesfully they manage it may well decide China's future.

[Drake Tungsten]

China is gay. I'm sorry, but someone had to say it.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Now that's the usual level of searing intellectual high flying analysis that we've all come to know and expect from our beloved Drake Tungsten.

Don't bother replying, either. You're on my ignore list so I can't read what you're saying anyway.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
No, it's more "we don't want to spare the forces needed to back the Chinese down right now, so hold off on this independence talk until our strategic situation is better".

This statement would be laughable if it is not so pathetic. Considering the difficulties the US forces are facing in Iraq, "hollow sounding" does not even begin to decribe the gross ignorance and arrogance contained within.

[Drake Tungsten]

Now that's the usual level of searing intellectual high flying analysis that we've all come to know and expect from our beloved Drake Tungsten.

Don't bother replying, either. You're on my ignore list so I can't read what you're saying anyway.

Wow, I never had you pegged as one of the humorless posters on Poly before this...

This statement would be laughable if it is not so pathetic. Considering the difficulties the US forces are facing in Iraq, "hollow sounding" does not even begin to decribe the gross ignorance and arrogance contained within.

What's so laughable about it? China's saber rattling has always died down in the past once America became sufficiently concerned about the situation to deploy carrier battle groups to the Taiwan Strait. Given the current strategic situation of the US, however, we don't really want to send a couple valuable carrier groups to back down the Chinese once again, so we just told the Taiwanese to chill out for a while. Once our strategic situation is back to normal, however, I see no reason why the U.S. wouldn't return to the status quo, ie. publicly supporting the "One China" policy whilst turning a blind eye towards Taiwanese moves toward independence and providing military support whenever the Chinese decide to go into bully mode.

Feel free to continue to criticize my ignorance and arrogance, though. I could use a good laugh.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The way I see it, this is the US's way of saying, "We are not going to get involved if missiles start flying, so proceed at your own peril."

Where do you see that?

[Ned]

Would it be helpful if a US president would mediate reunification talks somewhat like Clinton did in Northern Ireland and in the ME? With the two economic systems becoming essentially the same, the only real question dividing the two is the issue of political parties. Both sides seem to fear legalizing the other's parties in their home jurisdiction. Perhaps they fear a bloodbath if the opposing party were to come to power? Could happen, but I doubt it. But it seems that to me that the time may be ripe for direct talks and some mediation.