Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Asia Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (8882)	7/20/1999 9:59:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9980

Steve, Massive response was not meant to be interpreted as invading or bombing China (except locations from which attacks are launched against Taiwan). More of what I had in mind was a UN reinforcement of Taiwan, threatening to overrule the Chinese and Russian vetoes in the security council, if necessary. Basically, attacking Taiwan would be Bejing's escalation of events beyond all justification. A UN/US reinforcement of Taiwan would up the stakes accordingly potentially creating a long-term linkage between Taiwan and the west and placing them directly under our umbrella of protection from an abusive "sibling". But understand my viewpoint. I have nothing against China and Taiwan reunifying. But forcing the issue at the point of a gun is intolerable and not responding would be a terrible precedent to set that would only encourage Bejing's corrupt leadership to press their demands upon the west. This is about mutual respect between nations, not kowtowing to Bejing's every threat. Regards, Ron

To: Dayuhan who wrote (8882)	7/21/1999 4:57:00 PM
From: Liatris Spicata	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9980

Steven/Bosco- <<The only conclusion I can reach is that Lee was reacting to and attempting to encourage the anti-Chinese climate which now exists in Washington DC.>> Perhaps you should consider other possibilities. Here's another conclusion, from an unsigned op/ed in today's WSJ: "It is becoming increasingly clear that President Lee spoke when and how he did because Taipei has been under heavy-duty pressure from the U.S.--applied chiefly by Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia Stanley Roth--to begin discussing reunification with Beijing. How Taipei could negotiate anything from a position of diplomatic nothingness apparently does not concern Mr. Roth. Indeed, in hindsight it now appears that Mr. Clinton's decision last year to get 100% behind China's assertion of absolute sovereignty over Taiwan was intended to construct just such a box around Taipei. Already we are hearing whispers from Washington that Mr. Roth has now decreed that all but State Department functionaries are forbidden to go to Taipei: i.e., no one from Defense." Larry P.S. Bosco figures in here, with his suggestion that US acceptance of "one China" was a Jimmy Carter invention. I disagree, and so, apparently, does WSJ. Clinton has gone much further down that path than has any prior US president.