China - and the dangerous drift to war in Asia

There have been huge changes in economic predictions in less than a year.

Though interesting enough what hadn’t changed at the time of this report March last year was China’s ongoing hacking and cyber theft.

As had already been pointed out in 2018 'the greatest transfer of wealth in history’ to China had already taken place.
 
With the enforced introduction of the "National security law" and the ensuing specialist enforcement upon Hong Kong and it's "One state, two systems", I'm reminded of the valuable work put in by the Stasi in the German Democratic Republic.
 
Ah, ok - AJ said it was as the Taiwanese PM had voiced solidarity for HK - they must have it wrong.
That's a pretty shocking degree of investigative journalism, then. These kind of statements are boilerplate and go back to the end of the civil war.

As the SMH article explains, the PRC's legal framework for invading Taiwan to prevent a UDI was laid in 2005.
 
CCP have demonstrated to HK that treaties and promises mean nothing to them. The clamp down has begun and pretty soon the trade and commerce that was once valuable to them will have withered and gone away.

HK will now serve as an example to Taiwan of what lies in store for them should they ever either decide to reintegrate, or more like be forcibly taken over.

Meanwhile the CCP are are now resorting to open aggression and threats, and showing their true colours as they follow their new 'Wolf Warrior’ approach to diplomacy with the world.

They may find that though that while they most certainly have established strong financial hooks around the world, this lowering of their mask is not going to stand them well as their own economic shock sets in.
 
CCP have demonstrated to HK that treaties and promises mean nothing to them.
Article 18 of Basic Law.

That would be the Basic Law we negotiated with them before the handover and now seem to be insisting they don't get to apply. Don't treaties and promises mean anything?
 
The policy has been "peaceful reunification"
Now the're threatening to kick the door down.
The PRC passed a law giving a legal basis for using military force to prevent a Taiwanese UDI in 2005.

Unless you're claiming they can predict the future, then no, it's not been caused by HK or COVID. It's been caused by Taiwanese politics.
 
The PRC passed a law giving a legal basis for using military force to prevent a Taiwanese UDI in 2005.

Unless you're claiming they can predict the future, then no, it's not been caused by HK or COVID. It's been caused by Taiwanese CCP politics.
... choosing to cast Taiwan as a breakaway province rather than recognise and treat it as an independent country.
 
... is what every country in the world does.
True, and all very murky, particularly if, in this case, you factor in the UN recognition of Taiwan as 'China' prior to 1971.
 
True, and all very murky, particularly if, in this case, you factor in the UN recognition of Taiwan as 'China' prior to 1971.
Taiwan's own policy has always been that Taiwan is a province of China. The government in Taipei and the government in Beijing just disagree on which of them is the legitimate government of all of China.

The political system in Taiwan originated when the KMT were defeated on the mainland and retreated to Taiwan. So far as I am aware they never renounced their goal of returning to the mainland and resuming their "rightful" rule of all of China.

The local Taiwanese were then excluded from power locally and the defeated mainlanders under the KMT ruled Taiwan as an oppressive dictatorship. Eventually after many years, their power faded and local Taiwanese based groups were able to wrestle power from them.

In the early days the KMT were backed by the Soviet Union and organised along Marxist-Leninist lines and many of their top people were trained in political techniques in Moscow. The CPC were ordered by Moscow to cooperate with the KMT. Mao was a KMT member for a while.

The KMT and the CPC eventually had a falling out however, and the KMT conducted a purge of CPC members. The Japanese stuck their oar in the water, and it turned into a three way war, with various minor warlords adding their two cents worth into the conflict as well. With the split between the KMT and the CPC, the US chose to back the KMT and the USSR backed the CPC. The KMT's support was in the cities, while the CPC's support was in the countryside. The KMT proceeded to lose the civil war and retreated to Taiwan, which had recently been returned to China after decades as a colony of Japan.

The Taiwanese were not enamoured with being taken over by the KMT, so the latter began a brutal program of repression, imprisoning or executing tens of thousands of political opponents.

Chiang ruled Taiwan under martial law, as what was supposed to be a "temporary" measure until he could reorganise his army to invade the mainland and take over again. That "temporary" martial law period was to last for decades as the planned invasion of the mainland never materialised.

The KMT ruled as a one party state, with power held by an ageing clique of legislators who had come from the mainland, under the fiction that they were the legitimate government in exile. Their power faded as old age and the grim reaper gradually took them.

The original political philosophy of the KMT was anti-capitalist, anti-western, and highly nationalist. The commanding heights of the economy were to be nationalised and under state control. Quite frankly, the modern day CPC is probably closer to the KMT than they are to the party of Mao. Had the KMT defeated the CPC and retained power, I'm not sure that the political and diplomatic position of China under them would be greatly different from what it is today under the CPC, aside from Taiwan being under the direct rule of Beijing and relegated to being a minor island province of no great importance.

@smartascarrots can probably provide a much better summary of this than I can as I am sure I have missed much nuance as well as glossed over many of the internal contradictions in the KMT.
 
Taiwan's own policy has always been that Taiwan is a province of China. The government in Taipei and the government in Beijing just disagree on which of them is the legitimate government of all of China.

The political system in Taiwan originated when the KMT were defeated on the mainland and retreated to Taiwan. So far as I am aware they never renounced their goal of returning to the mainland and resuming their "rightful" rule of all of China.
The 'Taiwan' constitution is still that of the Republic of China, adapted slightly for the practicalities of governing the 'Free Area'. It still provides for the representatives of Tibet and Mongolia to take up their quota seats, should they ever manage to be elected in line with the constitutional provisions.

The local Taiwanese were then excluded from power locally and the defeated mainlanders under the KMT ruled Taiwan as an oppressive dictatorship. Eventually after many years, their power faded and local Taiwanese based groups were able to wrestle power from them.
It's more the case that the senior members of Taiwanese society at Retrocession were heavily Japan-oriented, often didn't speak Mandarin and were of the traditional land-holding classes that had undermined the KMT cause on the Mainland by retaining what was essentially feudal control of their tenants. Their professional expertise was also heavily restricted by the Japanese colonial government to teaching and medicine, so they were ill-equipped to run a modern economy and couldn't compete with the highly-educated and experienced ranks that eventually landed on Taiwan following the KMT defeat.

The Taiwanese were not enamoured with being taken over by the KMT, so the latter began a brutal program of repression, imprisoning or executing tens of thousands of political opponents.
The initial welcome was positive and many Taiwanese felt a sense of pride at being reunited with a strong and victorious motherland but that quickly changed when the quality of KMT cadre became apparent. Taiwan was still a backwater and the best talent the KMT had was being bent to recovery on the mainland, particularly the areas recently devastated by Japanese offensives in the later years ot the war. Nanjing basically scraped the barrel, wiped up what was left under the scrapings and sent that to Taiwan. Not an impressive bunch in general.

A combination of resentments - being excluded from government, losing power over Taiwanese society, shoddy treatment by Mainlanders and the milking of Taiwan's relative wealth to feed national recovery - boiled over and led to a combination of social protests and outright rebellion, which Nanjing quickly moved to crush.

It was interesting to see the responses of the unemployed former soldiers on Taiwan: being former IJA, they might be expected to be as heavily-Japanese oriented as the upper reaches of Taiwanese society but they seemed to hold them in utter contempt instead. Many of them even acknowledged that the KMT might offer the likes of them a better chance in life, but still rallied to the cause because... well, because they were soldiers and what else do soldiers do when the bugles blow?

One of the big ironies of the 228 Movement was that it focussed Nanjing's mind on social reform in Taiwan - not only were the Japanese-facing elites marginalised, but it gave the government a wonderful excuse to conduct the kind of land reform they'd been keen to see on the Mainland but lacked the political capital to achieve. As a result, the livelihoods of ordinary Taiwanese farmers rocketed overnight while the party and government organisations were able to penetrate the lowest levels of society in a way they hadn't while being moderated by the elites.

The original political philosophy of the KMT was anti-capitalist, anti-western, and highly nationalist. The commanding heights of the economy were to be nationalised and under state control. Quite frankly, the modern day CPC is probably closer to the KMT than they are to the party of Mao. Had the KMT defeated the CPC and retained power, I'm not sure that the political and diplomatic position of China under them would be greatly different from what it is today under the CPC, aside from Taiwan being under the direct rule of Beijing and relegated to being a minor island province of no great importance.
The fundamental principles of Sun Yat-Sen's 'Three Principles of the People' are pretty darned social-democratic if not outright socialist; Civic Nationalism; powers of governance; and the rights to a livelihood. Both sides adopted these as canon for their national policies, as did the short-lived collaborationist government of Wang Jingwei.

The CCP follows pretty closely to Sun Yat-Sen's original conception of the national economy as being a market under the direction of the state, exploited and arranged for the benefit of 'the people' (as opposed to individuals). You're bang on about the political and diplomatic positions not differing much. These are driven by the needs of governing China, not from ideological positions, and wouldn't be significantly different if someone else was in charge unless they were prepared to subordinate those needs to likes and dislikes of foreigners.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top