Monday, March 24, 2008
Taiwan and China
It is interesting to see that the Taiwanese people have chosen a president who is hoping for a peace treaty with mainland China. This attitude appears sensible to me. Let's hope the mainland Chinese can be equally as sensible about it.
The Taiwanese also rejected the proposal to apply for membership of the United Nations in the name of Taiwan.
All this eases the tension between Taiwan and the Chinese government. Hopefully it will open doors to further negotiation.
The Taiwanese also rejected the proposal to apply for membership of the United Nations in the name of Taiwan.
All this eases the tension between Taiwan and the Chinese government. Hopefully it will open doors to further negotiation.
Labels: Asia, China, politics, Taiwan
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Taiwan, China & Australia
I recently read a report from Associated Press quoting Australia's foreign minister, Stephen Smith, as saying that Taiwan's decision to hold a referendum on UN membership is 'completely inappropriate'. This Australian would like to stand up and be counted as disagreeing strongly with our new government on this issue.
The unsuccessful previous Labor prime-ministerial candidate endeared himself to many of us by calling John Howard an 'arse licker'. It is good that our new prime minister is not crawling so far up the American arse. It is unfortunate that he appears to feel it is necessary to crawl up the even bigger Chinese arse.
Yes, there are 1.3 billion Chinese people. It is the biggest market in the world. I accept that Australia's prosperity can continue to grow if we cultivate this market but our integrity must be questioned if we do it by selling out the 23 million people of Taiwan.
The 1.3 billion people of China have very little say about their government and its policies. The English-speaking people I met during my two-month stay in China showed an amazing understanding of various political issues and how different countries handled them. I don't know how this compares with the rest of the population but if these people are representative, China is very much ready for greater community participation in government decision-making processes.
So please Mr Smith, tell me why this authoritarian government should have the right to impose its ways on the 23 million people of Taiwan. Taiwan has democracy. Can China do better for them?
China's claim for the right to rule Taiwan is based on historical-legal precedents. It has nothing to do with the good of the Taiwanese people. Why would Australia support handing over Taiwan to the invader of Tibet and the strongest supporter of the military junta in Burma?
I believe this is the best time for Taiwan to take the bold step of holding this referendum. China is in the middle of a massive propaganda campaign called Beijing 2008 Olympic Games. They want the world to see them as good guys. How embarrassing it would be for them if they had to actually deploy any of the many missiles they have pointing at Taiwan.
One never knows what the future might bring. Perhaps one day China will see reason why it should also rule Australia. Sure there are no historical precedents but the Chinese rulers are masters at twisting words to make the unacceptable sound acceptable. I hope this never happens but I am simply trying to make the analogy. If we Australians were in the same position as the Taiwanese, where would you stand, Mr Smith?
The unsuccessful previous Labor prime-ministerial candidate endeared himself to many of us by calling John Howard an 'arse licker'. It is good that our new prime minister is not crawling so far up the American arse. It is unfortunate that he appears to feel it is necessary to crawl up the even bigger Chinese arse.
Yes, there are 1.3 billion Chinese people. It is the biggest market in the world. I accept that Australia's prosperity can continue to grow if we cultivate this market but our integrity must be questioned if we do it by selling out the 23 million people of Taiwan.
The 1.3 billion people of China have very little say about their government and its policies. The English-speaking people I met during my two-month stay in China showed an amazing understanding of various political issues and how different countries handled them. I don't know how this compares with the rest of the population but if these people are representative, China is very much ready for greater community participation in government decision-making processes.
So please Mr Smith, tell me why this authoritarian government should have the right to impose its ways on the 23 million people of Taiwan. Taiwan has democracy. Can China do better for them?
China's claim for the right to rule Taiwan is based on historical-legal precedents. It has nothing to do with the good of the Taiwanese people. Why would Australia support handing over Taiwan to the invader of Tibet and the strongest supporter of the military junta in Burma?
I believe this is the best time for Taiwan to take the bold step of holding this referendum. China is in the middle of a massive propaganda campaign called Beijing 2008 Olympic Games. They want the world to see them as good guys. How embarrassing it would be for them if they had to actually deploy any of the many missiles they have pointing at Taiwan.
One never knows what the future might bring. Perhaps one day China will see reason why it should also rule Australia. Sure there are no historical precedents but the Chinese rulers are masters at twisting words to make the unacceptable sound acceptable. I hope this never happens but I am simply trying to make the analogy. If we Australians were in the same position as the Taiwanese, where would you stand, Mr Smith?
Labels: Asia, Australia, China, Taiwan
