Taiwan's President Ma: China progress 'disappointing'

[大汉奸柳传志]

I agree with jhungary. The funny thing is that its the CCP thats the biggest upstacle to any reunification with Taiwan. Since the CCP is still a one party dictatorship(according to taiwanese) who censors the net/media , and thus is viewed by hong kongers and Taiwanese (rightly or wrongly) as hostile/bacward.

Unfortunately for China, Taiwan has already tasted western idea of democracy/freedom for a very long time now. They wouldn't accept anything less than that if ever they were to accept of reuniting with the mainland. As long as the CCP stays in power and refuses to become more democratic/reform, there will NEVER BE REUNIFICATION with Tawan. the KMT already said they wil accept to reunify with the mainland ONLY when china becomes a democracy like Taiwan. So the ball is in chinas court.

We all know the CCP wont ever accept that. Not anytime this century, bar a revolution .lol

Why? Liberation by force is always on the table.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Why? Liberation by force is always on the table.

I was about to add that bro. You beat me to it. Lol

Yes , so the only way for china to reunify with Taiwan peacefully under the current CCP is through war.

 

[Carlosa]

Taiwan's Former President Causes Controversy in Japan
Lee Teng-hui causes a stir by repeating his view that the Senkakus belong to Japan.

By Shannon Tiezzi
July 30, 2015

Former Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui was in Japan last week, where he met with a number of Japanese officials, including Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Since his return on Sunday, Lee’s comments on the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands (made while in Japan) have created a firestorm of controversy in Taiwan, with mainland Chinese media paying close attention.

Lee’s trip to Japan was controversial even before he left. Beijing had urged the Japanese government not to allow the visit, without success. In a statement, Lu Kang, a spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry, expressed China’s “deep concern and strong dissatisfaction.” The statement called Lee “an obstinate propagandist of the ‘Taiwan independence’” and accused Japan of providing a convenient platform “for his ‘Taiwan independence’ activities in Japan.”

Still, Lee’s trip was hardly unusual. The former president, now 92, has visited Japan seven times since he left office in 2000, with his previous trip in September 2014. On this trip, Lee gave a speech before roughly 400 Japanese legislators at a Diet office building, a first for Lee or any former Taiwanese leader. He then visited Fukushima Prefecture, the site of the devastating March 2011 earthquake and tsunami, and Miyagi Prefecture, which was hit hard by an April 2011 aftershock quake.

Lee also met with Abe, who reportedly visited Lee’s hotel in Tokyo. According to The Yomiuri Shimbun, the two discussed “Japan’s current political situation, including the issue of security-related bills now under deliberation in the Diet.” Lee supports Japan’s right to exercise collective self-defense.

In his speech at the Diet, Lee emphasized the need for Taiwan to undergo further democratic reform, especially constitutional reform, to complete its democratic development. He also reiterated his views on cross-strait relations: “I can never agree to what China has repeatedly been saying about the ‘one-China’ (principle) or that Taiwan is part of China.” Lee earned Beijing’s eternal wrath while in office for seeking to redefine the cross-strait relationship as a “special” kind of state-to-state relationship.

However, Lee’s remarks on Taiwan’s political system and identity aren’t what caused the controversy. The firestorm arose from a comment at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club in Tokyo, when Lee said that the Senkaku Islands, called the Diaoyutai in Taiwan and the Diaoyu in mainland China, belong only to Japan. The islands are currently controlled by Japan, but disputed by both Beijing and Taipei.

This isn’t the first time Lee has waded into the Senkaku/Diaoyu controversy. He made similar comments in September 2012, in an interview with a Japanese magazine. “The Diaoyu islands, no matter whether in the past, for now or in the future, certainly belong to Japan,” Lee said then.

Still, politicians in Taiwan were quick to slam Lee for his remarks, which critics said damaged Taiwan’s claim to the islands. A Ministry of Foreign Affairs official appeared in a press conference, emphasizing the official government position that the Diaoyutai are part of the inherent territory of the Republic of China. Tsai Ing-wen, the presidential candidate for the opposition Democratic Progressive Party, also reiterated that “the Diaoyutai belong to Taiwan” when asked by reporters for her stance.

Lee was attacked most strongly, however, by members of his own party, the ruling Kuomintang (KMT). Party Chairman Eric Chu said that he “would never concur with the view that the Diaoyutai Islands and South China Sea islands do not belong to the ROC no matter who is behind the contention.” Lai Shyh-bao, head of the KMT policy committee, said that Lee’s remarks “damaged Taiwan’s rights and reputation.” He vowed to try to scrap Lee’s taxpayer-funded annual stipend of NT$10 million ($317,000), even if laws must be amended to do so. “If he (Lee) wants to enjoy the perks, he should go to Japan,” Lai said scathingly. Another KMT legislator, Wu Yu-sheng, said Lee’s comments were a form of treason and suggested he would be happy to see the former president charged in court with “disgracing our nation.”

Yok Mu-ming, chairman of the New Party, took things a step farther by actually filing a complaintagainst Lee at the Taiwan High Prosecutor’s Office. Yok’s complaint accused Lee of colluding with foreign states with the intent of subjecting ROC territory to foreign control. Lee “sold his soul and the ROC,” Yok claimed.

Lee also came under fire for making remarks praising Japan’s colonial rule over Taiwan. “Lee said in Japan that Taiwanese feel nostalgia for Japanese rule, but in fact, people were harshly bullied, abused, humiliated and oppressed during the colonial period,” Lai said. “As a former president, how dare he [make] the remarks to flatter Japan.”

Mainland China also stepped into the fray, slamming Lee for his comments. “The Japanese were cruel in governing, slaughtering civilians and soldiers in Taiwan,” one commentary in Xinhuafumed. “How could Mr. Lee speak of such a dark and shameful history with gratitude?”

A spokesperson for the State Council’s Taiwan Affairs Office, which handles cross-strait relations, tied Lee’s controversial remarks to his “Taiwan independence” stance. “Lee’s contemptible acts have made compatriots from both sides see more clearly the extreme harms ‘Taiwan independence’ forces do to the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations and the integral benefit of the Chinese nation,” spokesperson Ma Xiaoguang, said on Friday.

While Lee’s comments on Japan are not directly tied to his stance on the cross-strait relationship, there is a connection. Those who see Taiwan as a unique country, separate from mainland China – and separate from the ROC’s historical territorial claims – are less likely to care about staking out Taiwan’s claim to the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, or even to disputed territories in the South China Sea.

As evidence of this divide, two warring camps – the China Unify Party and the pro-independence Taiwan Solidarity Union – were there to greet Lee at the airport upon his return to Taiwan. The CUP came to protest; the TSU welcomed Lee with flowers and shouts of “I love you.”

 

[Zsari]

Traditionally, the leaders of the independent movement have used the issue of independence in order to get votes and they have stoked nationalistic thinking and emotions for their own self serving purposes.

That pretty much sums it all up. Regardless what the system of government is in China or how China is willing to compromise, politicians on the island will use the issue of independence for their own purpose. Thus there will never be a peaceful unification. If Beijing want to preserve the state of nation as one, it will have to do it through war. Take a lesson from Lincoln.

 

[Aepsilons]

Taiwan's Former President Causes Controversy in Japan
Lee Teng-hui causes a stir by repeating his view that the Senkakus belong to Japan.

By Shannon Tiezzi
July 30, 2015

Former Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui was in Japan last week, where he met with a number of Japanese officials, including Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Since his return on Sunday, Lee’s comments on the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands (made while in Japan) have created a firestorm of controversy in Taiwan, with mainland Chinese media paying close attention.

Lee’s trip to Japan was controversial even before he left. Beijing had urged the Japanese government not to allow the visit, without success. In a statement, Lu Kang, a spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry, expressed China’s “deep concern and strong dissatisfaction.” The statement called Lee “an obstinate propagandist of the ‘Taiwan independence’” and accused Japan of providing a convenient platform “for his ‘Taiwan independence’ activities in Japan.”

Still, Lee’s trip was hardly unusual. The former president, now 92, has visited Japan seven times since he left office in 2000, with his previous trip in September 2014. On this trip, Lee gave a speech before roughly 400 Japanese legislators at a Diet office building, a first for Lee or any former Taiwanese leader. He then visited Fukushima Prefecture, the site of the devastating March 2011 earthquake and tsunami, and Miyagi Prefecture, which was hit hard by an April 2011 aftershock quake.

Lee also met with Abe, who reportedly visited Lee’s hotel in Tokyo. According to The Yomiuri Shimbun, the two discussed “Japan’s current political situation, including the issue of security-related bills now under deliberation in the Diet.” Lee supports Japan’s right to exercise collective self-defense.

In his speech at the Diet, Lee emphasized the need for Taiwan to undergo further democratic reform, especially constitutional reform, to complete its democratic development. He also reiterated his views on cross-strait relations: “I can never agree to what China has repeatedly been saying about the ‘one-China’ (principle) or that Taiwan is part of China.” Lee earned Beijing’s eternal wrath while in office for seeking to redefine the cross-strait relationship as a “special” kind of state-to-state relationship.

However, Lee’s remarks on Taiwan’s political system and identity aren’t what caused the controversy. The firestorm arose from a comment at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club in Tokyo, when Lee said that the Senkaku Islands, called the Diaoyutai in Taiwan and the Diaoyu in mainland China, belong only to Japan. The islands are currently controlled by Japan, but disputed by both Beijing and Taipei.

This isn’t the first time Lee has waded into the Senkaku/Diaoyu controversy. He made similar comments in September 2012, in an interview with a Japanese magazine. “The Diaoyu islands, no matter whether in the past, for now or in the future, certainly belong to Japan,” Lee said then.

Still, politicians in Taiwan were quick to slam Lee for his remarks, which critics said damaged Taiwan’s claim to the islands. A Ministry of Foreign Affairs official appeared in a press conference, emphasizing the official government position that the Diaoyutai are part of the inherent territory of the Republic of China. Tsai Ing-wen, the presidential candidate for the opposition Democratic Progressive Party, also reiterated that “the Diaoyutai belong to Taiwan” when asked by reporters for her stance.

Lee was attacked most strongly, however, by members of his own party, the ruling Kuomintang (KMT). Party Chairman Eric Chu said that he “would never concur with the view that the Diaoyutai Islands and South China Sea islands do not belong to the ROC no matter who is behind the contention.” Lai Shyh-bao, head of the KMT policy committee, said that Lee’s remarks “damaged Taiwan’s rights and reputation.” He vowed to try to scrap Lee’s taxpayer-funded annual stipend of NT$10 million ($317,000), even if laws must be amended to do so. “If he (Lee) wants to enjoy the perks, he should go to Japan,” Lai said scathingly. Another KMT legislator, Wu Yu-sheng, said Lee’s comments were a form of treason and suggested he would be happy to see the former president charged in court with “disgracing our nation.”

Yok Mu-ming, chairman of the New Party, took things a step farther by actually filing a complaintagainst Lee at the Taiwan High Prosecutor’s Office. Yok’s complaint accused Lee of colluding with foreign states with the intent of subjecting ROC territory to foreign control. Lee “sold his soul and the ROC,” Yok claimed.

Lee also came under fire for making remarks praising Japan’s colonial rule over Taiwan. “Lee said in Japan that Taiwanese feel nostalgia for Japanese rule, but in fact, people were harshly bullied, abused, humiliated and oppressed during the colonial period,” Lai said. “As a former president, how dare he [make] the remarks to flatter Japan.”

Mainland China also stepped into the fray, slamming Lee for his comments. “The Japanese were cruel in governing, slaughtering civilians and soldiers in Taiwan,” one commentary in Xinhuafumed. “How could Mr. Lee speak of such a dark and shameful history with gratitude?”

A spokesperson for the State Council’s Taiwan Affairs Office, which handles cross-strait relations, tied Lee’s controversial remarks to his “Taiwan independence” stance. “Lee’s contemptible acts have made compatriots from both sides see more clearly the extreme harms ‘Taiwan independence’ forces do to the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations and the integral benefit of the Chinese nation,” spokesperson Ma Xiaoguang, said on Friday.

While Lee’s comments on Japan are not directly tied to his stance on the cross-strait relationship, there is a connection. Those who see Taiwan as a unique country, separate from mainland China – and separate from the ROC’s historical territorial claims – are less likely to care about staking out Taiwan’s claim to the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, or even to disputed territories in the South China Sea.

As evidence of this divide, two warring camps – the China Unify Party and the pro-independence Taiwan Solidarity Union – were there to greet Lee at the airport upon his return to Taiwan. The CUP came to protest; the TSU welcomed Lee with flowers and shouts of “I love you.”

Actually, there's quite a large segment of Japanese population that supports Taiwanese Declaration of Independence. There are also some Japanese Right Wingers who support Taiwan's Re-integration with the Japanese Fatherland.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

I was about to add that bro. You beat me to it. Lol

Yes , so the only way for china to reunify with Taiwan peacefully under the current CCP is through war.

I don't see a problem with that.

the mainland and Taiwan are technically in a state of civil war. theoretically anything can happen and it is legally justified.

 

[Aepsilons]

Taiwan and Japan’s Collective Self-Defense


Though left unsaid, a Chinese invasion of Taiwan figured prominently into Tokyo’s reinterpretation of Article 9.

Ankit and I were joined on the podcast this week by Clint, our Tokyo-based editor and residential Japan expert, who runs the new Tokyo Report blog. Not surprisingly, the topic of discussion or the podcast was Japan’s reinterpretation of Article 9 of its constitution to allow for collective self-defense.

As is probably clear from listening to the podcast, there were slight disagreements on a couple of issues between Ankit and Clint on the one hand, and myself on the other. First, I felt that the purpose of the reinterpretation was to finally provide Japan with the inherent right to collective self-defense as enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. Clint assured me that the reinterpretation was aimed at being much more limited.

Having the chance to read up more on the subject, I am unsurprised to learn that Clint was correct (after all, he is our resident Japan expert). First, unlike Article 51 which provides nations with the inherent right to come to the aid of allies even if the states themselves are not directly threatened, the reinterpretation of Article 9 only allows Tokyo to come to the defense of allies if it can be tied directly to its own defense. As the vice president of New Komeito, LDP’s coalition partner, Kazuo Kitagawa explained: “Collective self-defense under international law means defending other countries without considering if that would infringe on one’s own security, but we see this as part of the self-defense of Japan.”

Second, because of pressure from New Komeito, the revision doesn’t explicitly give Japan the right to collective self-defense, but rather says that some actions that are permitted could be construed as collective self-defense.

The other point of disagreement was over where Japan would apply it. We all agreed that it would be applied to its alliance with the U.S., and possibly in certain actions related to the Korean Peninsula, such as shooting down North Korean ballistic missiles headed for the United States (South Korea once again reiterated after this revision that it opposes Japan intervening on the Korean Peninsula without its explicit approval).

I argued, however, that one of the unsaid aims of the revision was to give Japan the ability to intervene on behalf of Taiwan if the People’s Republic of China ever sought to seize the island by force. Clint and Ankit were highly skeptical that this was the case.

After reading up more on the new revision, I still believe that this is the case. For example, the Japan Times explains that under the reinterpretation, three conditions must be met to allow Japan to come to the aid of a partner nation:

“The attack on that country poses a clear danger to Japan’s survival or could fundamentally overturn Japanese citizens’ constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

“There is no other way of repelling the attack and protecting Japan and its citizens.

“The use of force is limited to the minimum necessary.”

Previously it reported that the final draft of the Cabinet document said Japan could intervene militarily “when an attack on a country that ‘has close relations’ with Japan ‘poses a clear danger of threatening our country’s existence and fundamentally overthrowing our people’s lives, freedom and right to pursue happiness.’”

This seems to apply to Taiwan. As The Diplomat has noted, no country in Northeast Asia has as close and friendly of relations with Japan as Taipei. Secondly, China conquering and occupying Taiwan would present about as clear a danger to Japan’s survival as any event short of an attack on Japan itself. The Senkaku Islands are roughly half the distance from Taiwan as they are from mainland China, which would allow Beijing to bring far more force to bear in an attack on them. It would also allow Beijing to approach the islands from roughly two different directions. Furthermore, Taiwan’s strategic location would greatly enhance China’s ability to interdict maritime shipping to and from Japan.

Thus, China’s occupation would be a threat to both Japan’s territorial integrity as well as the “lives, freedom and right to pursue happiness” of the Japanese people. If the PLA was in the midst of an invasion of Taiwan, it’s hard to imagine any other way of repelling the attack then through intervening in support of Taiwan. In any case, one of the examples openly being espoused as an example of when Japan would exercise collective self-defense is when a U.S. ship came under attack on the high seas. This would almost certainly happen if America intervened in support of Taiwan, which would allow Japan to join the fight.

Thus, I think at the very least Japan’s right of collective self-defense is meant to apply to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, even if this is left unsaid for obvious diplomatic reasons.


Reference: The Diplomat

 

[XiaoYaoZi]

For Ma the any discusses about the Mainland are redundant and useless, the most important thing he should care about is whether he would be sent to jail by his Taiwan mates.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Taiwan and Japan’s Collective Self-Defense


Though left unsaid, a Chinese invasion of Taiwan figured prominently into Tokyo’s reinterpretation of Article 9.

Ankit and I were joined on the podcast this week by Clint, our Tokyo-based editor and residential Japan expert, who runs the new Tokyo Report blog. Not surprisingly, the topic of discussion or the podcast was Japan’s reinterpretation of Article 9 of its constitution to allow for collective self-defense.

As is probably clear from listening to the podcast, there were slight disagreements on a couple of issues between Ankit and Clint on the one hand, and myself on the other. First, I felt that the purpose of the reinterpretation was to finally provide Japan with the inherent right to collective self-defense as enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. Clint assured me that the reinterpretation was aimed at being much more limited.

Having the chance to read up more on the subject, I am unsurprised to learn that Clint was correct (after all, he is our resident Japan expert). First, unlike Article 51 which provides nations with the inherent right to come to the aid of allies even if the states themselves are not directly threatened, the reinterpretation of Article 9 only allows Tokyo to come to the defense of allies if it can be tied directly to its own defense. As the vice president of New Komeito, LDP’s coalition partner, Kazuo Kitagawa explained: “Collective self-defense under international law means defending other countries without considering if that would infringe on one’s own security, but we see this as part of the self-defense of Japan.”

Second, because of pressure from New Komeito, the revision doesn’t explicitly give Japan the right to collective self-defense, but rather says that some actions that are permitted could be construed as collective self-defense.

The other point of disagreement was over where Japan would apply it. We all agreed that it would be applied to its alliance with the U.S., and possibly in certain actions related to the Korean Peninsula, such as shooting down North Korean ballistic missiles headed for the United States (South Korea once again reiterated after this revision that it opposes Japan intervening on the Korean Peninsula without its explicit approval).

I argued, however, that one of the unsaid aims of the revision was to give Japan the ability to intervene on behalf of Taiwan if the People’s Republic of China ever sought to seize the island by force. Clint and Ankit were highly skeptical that this was the case.

After reading up more on the new revision, I still believe that this is the case. For example, the Japan Times explains that under the reinterpretation, three conditions must be met to allow Japan to come to the aid of a partner nation:

“The attack on that country poses a clear danger to Japan’s survival or could fundamentally overturn Japanese citizens’ constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

“There is no other way of repelling the attack and protecting Japan and its citizens.

“The use of force is limited to the minimum necessary.”

Previously it reported that the final draft of the Cabinet document said Japan could intervene militarily “when an attack on a country that ‘has close relations’ with Japan ‘poses a clear danger of threatening our country’s existence and fundamentally overthrowing our people’s lives, freedom and right to pursue happiness.’”

This seems to apply to Taiwan. As The Diplomat has noted, no country in Northeast Asia has as close and friendly of relations with Japan as Taipei. Secondly, China conquering and occupying Taiwan would present about as clear a danger to Japan’s survival as any event short of an attack on Japan itself. The Senkaku Islands are roughly half the distance from Taiwan as they are from mainland China, which would allow Beijing to bring far more force to bear in an attack on them. It would also allow Beijing to approach the islands from roughly two different directions. Furthermore, Taiwan’s strategic location would greatly enhance China’s ability to interdict maritime shipping to and from Japan.

Thus, China’s occupation would be a threat to both Japan’s territorial integrity as well as the “lives, freedom and right to pursue happiness” of the Japanese people. If the PLA was in the midst of an invasion of Taiwan, it’s hard to imagine any other way of repelling the attack then through intervening in support of Taiwan. In any case, one of the examples openly being espoused as an example of when Japan would exercise collective self-defense is when a U.S. ship came under attack on the high seas. This would almost certainly happen if America intervened in support of Taiwan, which would allow Japan to join the fight.

Thus, I think at the very least Japan’s right of collective self-defense is meant to apply to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, even if this is left unsaid for obvious diplomatic reasons.


Reference: The Diplomat

Lool dont go too far. Japan will do nothing even if china invades taiwan(which i dont think will happen anytime soon anyway, if ever), japan has no business in the war. Only the U.S might(that too remains to be seen)

 

[Zsari]

For Ma the any discusses about the Mainland are redundant and useless, the most important thing he should care about is whether he would be sent to jail by his Taiwan mates.

While his statement is meaningless, it is the gesture that counts. After all, according to it's constitution, mainland is part of ROC, thus as the president he has to make some statement on the subject from time to time.

 

[Aepsilons]

Lool dont go too far. Japan will do nothing even if china invades taiwan(which i dont think will happen anytume soon anyway), japan has no business in the war. Only the U.S might(that too remains to be seen)

I think it benefits all of us to maintain our respective Strategic Ambiguities. Yet at the same time, i think its healthy to discourse on the political machinations as well as the military interventive policies that may require prudent consideration. Given, the Japanese economy is heavily entrenched and embedded in Taiwan, the same as Taiwan in Japan. Any military attack on our Taiwanese friends will be equivalent to an attack on Japan itself.

I'm not saying Japan will intervene, I'm not saying Japan will not intervene ; I'm just saying its mature politics to consider contingencies.


Regards my English friend.

 

[LowPost]

I hope @TaiShang's head wouldn't end up on the pointy end of a spike if the planned invasion were to ever happen, regardless of the outcome

 

[Jlaw]

For Ma the any discusses about the Mainland are redundant and useless, the most important thing he should care about is whether he would be sent to jail by his Taiwan mates.

I can understand from Ma's perspective. His KMT is losing popularity and as a typical politician he will need to say things in order to prop up his popularity.

 

[Aepsilons]

I hope @TaiShang's head wouldn't end up on the pointy end of a spike if the planned invasion were to ever happen, regardless of the outcome

I hope not, but I'm sure he would be given political asylum in Japan.

I can understand from Ma's perspective. His KMT is losing popularity and as a typical politician he will need to say things in order to prop up his popularity.

The DPP will be the dominant force in Taiwan , from the look of correlative analysis. The DPP, unlike the KMT, is bolder, and I personally admire how Dr. Tsai has been keen on not talking about 'independence' issue while campaigning. I believe that after she wins the presidential elections, she will be more vocal, as well as the constituencies. Taiwan is really in the cusp of a political paradigm shift.

 

[mike2000 is back]

I hope @TaiShang's head wouldn't end up on the pointy end of a spike if the planned invasion were to ever happen, regardless of the outcome

Ahahahah.....nice 1.

I think it benefits all of us to maintain our respective Strategic Ambiguities. Yet at the same time, i think its healthy to discourse on the political machinations as well as the military interventive policies that may require prudent consideration. Given, the Japanese economy is heavily entrenched and embedded in Taiwan, the same as Taiwan in Japan. Any military attack on our Taiwanese friends will be equivalent to an attack on Japan itself.

I'm not saying Japan will intervene, I'm not saying Japan will not intervene ; I'm just saying its mature politics to consider contingencies.


Regards my English friend.

Yes, good to consider contigencies, but Japan wont intervene, for that im sure. Too little to gain,too much to lose. Maybe some economic sanctions and diplomatic protests at best.
The U.S is another matter altogether, since it has much more presence/influence in the region as a hegemon, so it will be a bigger threat to its stranglehold in the region if china was to invade taiwan. So to limit china from breaking off the first island chain , it MIGHT intervene.