SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Technology Stocks : Softbank Group Corp -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Edwin S. Fujinaka who wrote (5176)5/31/2000 4:54:00 PM
From: badon518  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 6018
 
OT if the mainland Chinese think Clinton is a softy, they underestimate him. He has never let matters of policy interfere where military intervention would yield good photo ops. As a result, he has committed American military forces to more missions in more places than we have seen in a long time. This includes the far east where he dispatches crown jewels of the US navy, carrier task forces, to the Taiwan Straits as a show of resolve for Taiwan.

He also has nerves of steel (whatever his moral fibre is made of) as shown by his shameless performance throughout the Monica Lewinski thing. Remember how composed his state of the union message was when the Lewinski thing was breaking?

There is a sordid link between domestic Chinese politics and domestic US politics going back to the influence of the Soong family on the GOP as well as ties to the foreign policy and intelligence establishments, etc, etc. and the tension between Chiang Kai Shek and Gen. Stilwell and probably before that.

None of which is to say Clinton is more estimable than George W., but I just don't see him as any different in his China policy than his predecessors or his likely successor (George W.).

As an aside, I think the wrong Bush is running for President-- GW's kid brother is doing a heck of a job in Florida and is, imho, more presidential.



To: Edwin S. Fujinaka who wrote (5176)6/2/2000 12:33:00 AM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 6018
 
Hi Edwin, You know I distrust politics to the extreme, communism in its authoritarian form the least, as a Trinidadian Chinese no less.

(1) From my travels in China I have to conclude that there are no communists on Mainland China that are in charge of matters, but some genuine good guys, some thugs, and some scoundrels and (2) Taiwan's recent election result was engineered by the previous president Lee through political machinations that effectively split the vote within his own party. Lee wanted Chen to win as independence is his agenda, not continuing KMT rule. This is the reason Lee was dethroned from KMT leadership group, by the people and crowds on the street.

Western press' failure to report does not make reality different. For better news analysis and coverage on the Taiwan question, nothing beats the free press of Hong Kong as they indiscriminantly dig up every bit of dirt fit to publish.

Lee had at one time been a card carrying Communist party member, sold out his colleagues (four later got executed by the KMT), joined KMT and now has sold out the KMT. Lee at one time claimed that he feels more Japanese than Chinese.

Lee, especially when speaking in Fujianese (as opposed to English or Mandarin Chinese), is so clearly of the thug class that with people such as Lee running things, it will simply be a matter of time that Taiwan will have to face the reality (as Taiwan keep wanting Mainland and the world to face reality that it is a separate and independent political entity) that the territory will be reunited with the mainland, only a matter of time. Lee is not the sort one wants to be friends with, considering moral character only.

So, for timing of reunification, out of thousands of years of history, what is another 20 years? Think Isreal, Germany, Hong Kong.

My business has quite a bit to do with Taiwan interests and the business folks in Taiwan are in fact preparing for the unthinkable reunification. Chen's hold on power will depend greatly, whether he realizes or not, on how effectively (value creating) he interacts with Mainland China.

The only questions that remain are (1) what kind of Mainland China will be reuniting the territory of Taiwan, (2) how, and (3) which countries will try to actively stop China.

On two of the three points, I believe (1) China ultimately will evolve into what Taiwan is like today before it reaches for reunification, namely strong (largest economy in the world, nuclear parity with all), quasi-democratic (as all countries are bar the Icelands of this world), and (3) as China will act only when ready, then by definition, no countries will try to actively stop China.

I am assuming that the quantum physics of star wars, aluminized decoy warheads, submarine based pre-emptory strike capability deployment, rational geopolitical and economic thinking work out as we generally expect them to as scientifically enable analysts.

On (2), the choice will be left to the Taiwanese, probably by some sort of electoral process, in fact.

The geopolitical reality is simple, as the wheel of history grinds on, that Taiwan territory can not be sailed away and Taiwan's continuing economic prosperity in fact, like Hong Kong, will more and more depend on China for material and component sourcing, product/services markets, R and D talents, financial market stability, and as for many thousands of years, political sanctioning from within the Gates of Heavenly Peace.

Not necessarily pleasant, but not what wars are made of between 18 million folks on an island off shore from 1.2 billion folks on a continent a few miles away.

As far as the US is concerned, no national interests are in fact at stake at that time, other than peaceful co-existence with quasi-democratic China.

As far as Japan is concerned, simply marking another step towards historically normal order in Asian history.

Wild card is in fact Russia, and possibly perhaps (long shot) India.

My interpretation of the whys and whats is based only on geopolitics and economics, equilibriums and point of maximum stability, and not ever on political philosophy.