News Update 2008.02.03
Hi! A more brief news update this time around. 
Taiwan Warned Against “Referendum”
Beijing issues a warning to Taipei (which in no way suggests that they’re by any means equal) that if it continues to seek UN membership, Taiwan will pay a “heavy price”.
- What does Beijing mean by “heavy price”? How much is Beijing really willing to pay to safeguard territorial integrity? How much is Taiwan willing to pay for independence?
- Why does the article (from China’s state newspaper) make a point about the “opposition from the international community, including the US”?
- How does Beijing make the argument that the “referendum” is undemocratic, and what does that reflect on the value that China places on democracy?
Read More (People’s Daily)
Retooling the Economy
Given the recent snowstorms and the economic slowdown of the United States, Chinese economists are proposing that economic policy be adjusted before the National People’s Congress on March 5.
- How deeply are the economies of the US and China intertwined? How does that affect cooperation or conflict in non-economic fields, such as politics and war?
- What risks do inflation create for social stability in China? What does it mean for workers when their wages no longer support a minimum standard of living?
Read More (People’s Daily)
Managing Minorities
An article on the People’s Daily very briefly mentions the Tibetans celebrating their New Year in Beijing. Apart from general interest in Tibetan culture, this article reveals some interesting concepts about China’s 56 ethnic groups.
- Why does the article mention that “economic achievements” during a cultural celebration?
- What is the importance of negotiating with the various ethnic groups in China (Tibetans, Uighurs)?
Read More (People’s Daily)
That’s it! Let us know what you think of these articles.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
The March referendum will pose an interesting situation for the rogue province, Taiwan, Beijing, and the rest of the world. Due to the interpretation of the Chinese constitution that if Taiwan was to apply for UN admission, a de facto proclamation of its supposed autonomy and independence, the PRC would be forced to declare war in defense of its governed area. Should such an event occur, the standing policy of Taiwan to defend the island until U.S. intervention will fall flat due to modern economic Sino-American relations. These relations have been reflected in the U.S. opposition to the referendum which is similar in some ways to the 2003 referendum to change the flag of the province.
Furthermore, the current economic trends of Chinese growth and American “dynamics” show that each state is very much tied to, if not dependent of, the economy of the other. As stated before, the economic relationships will play a key role during times of aggression and war on either nation’s part.
What will be extremely interesting will be to see how a deterioration of relations between China and India during a Kashmir crisis might affect cross-strait relations. Perhaps Taiwan will take advantage of such a time and declare independence much to its own detriment.
Thank you very much, honorable chairs for maintaining this blog. It has made for some very interesting reading.
For future reference, should the other ministers and myself leave our real names our the names of our assignments.
中华人民共和国万岁
Roy Zhang
February 10th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Excellent post Mr. Zhang.
To answer your question, you may leave either one. In your case, since you began your comments under “Roy Zhang”, it is advisable that you keep commenting under the same alias. Please also list your Minister position for future reference.
Your post is dead on in highlighting the major gamble that confronts Chinese officials today in regards to the US and Taiwan. On the one hand, you are quite correct in pointing out that the economic links between the US and China make the possibility of war costly. On the other hand, perhaps you underestimate the pro-Taiwan bloc within the US government. Some US officials, including my former boss Hon. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, are quite committed to the defense of democracy. Others who are firmly entrenched in realpolitik would never give up the chance to weaken China. Political passion may temporarily blind a nation to the costs of war, and it wouldn’t be the first time that America has entered a military conflict without totally thinking it through.
An old adage states that “if one desires peace, they should plan for war”. Believing in a guarantee for peace without contingencies may land you someplace where you might not want to be.
February 27th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Hello! I decided to try to get a conversation going as it appears no one else has been commenting so in response to the above…
When discussing China’s possible responses to a declaration of Taiwanese independence, it is important to remember the importance China is placing on its world image. Based on the Tibet New Year article above as well as other events such as the Olympics, Iranian Crisis, etc., it is all to clear that Beijing is making a conscious effort to rise as a peaceful power. It is making sure to appear to appreciate its minorities (hence the state-run Tibetan festival) as well as a benevolent ruler (downplaying accusations of human rights abuses).
A declaration of Taiwanese independence would no doubt yield a Chinese militaristic response but I am sure, based on the events mentioned above as well as President Hu’s “Peaceful Rise,” that such an event would coincide with a diligent diplomatic effort both on the world stage and bilaterally with the United States. If such an event happened anytime in the near future, China would have the advantage over Western powers due to the fact that many of them are already being embattled and overstretched in the Middle East.
Thus, while China made deft advances into Taiwan, it could (and mostly likely would) buy time and world opinion by launching a sound diplomatic mission simultaneously.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Chinese-US relations are especially interesting to me in that they are the prime example of political bilateral relations in this day and age–although it may seem that US hesitation towards assertive action in the Formosa Strait is directly in correlation with economic ties, the relationship goes both ways as my fellow cabinet member has previously mentioned.
For two countries that are so intertwined in international politics and their own economies, the relationship has been the epitome of tumultuous association. Perhaps their biggest difference doesn’t lie in ideology, culture, or position on the international timeline (the United States as the current superpower, China as the proposed next), but in education.
Simply put, Chinese politicians are trained as engineers; Hu Jintao went to Tsinghua University to receive a degree in hydraulic engineering, as well as Premier Wen Jibao in geomechanics. American politicians are traditionally trained in the nation’s best law schools.
The difference in provocational training is reflected in national policy. As Robert Kuhn so eloquently wrote (unfortunately, I can’t find a direct link to the article–I’ll try tomorrow when I’m not so tired, hungry, or irritable) this difference can best be seen in both nations’ reactions regarding the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade (a location that never ceases to attract conflict, in light of the recent torching of the US embassy; situational irony at its finest, but I digress). While the United States played off the situation as a “logistical mix-up,” the Chinese government bussed protesting students across the city to the US embassy. Obviously, this move was condemned by the American government–but from a Chinese point of view, these protesters could have rallied across town to the US embassy by themselves and on the way provoke ordinary, disgruntled citizens to rally up in protest with them, only making the situation worse.
In a situation, lawyers are trained to avoid the worst; engineers are trained to make the best of it. In my opinion, no two parallels in ideology can be better described as the Sino-American relationship than this.
March 2nd, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Regarding the possibility of war between the United States and China over Taiwan, it is imperative to note China’s continuing “peaceful rise” strategy. While it is obvious that China would respond to a declaration of Taiwanese independence with military operations, it is all to plausible that the PROC will pair these operations with a massive diplomatic effort at both the international level and the multilateral level (mostly likely with with Western and regional powers). As the article under “Managing Minorities” infers, China is placing a huge importance on its world image (particularly its handle of minorities)- even going so far as celebrating Tibetan customs. With the Olympics just around the corner and foreign investment at an all time high, it would ridiculous for the PROC to attack Taiwan without tempering its actions with old-fashioned diplomacy. Perhaps such an effort would buy it enough time to save its image while still gaining control of the island.