China warns interlopers in South China Sea

It will be matter of negotiation, such as what does the Philippines and the rest of the countries want in return from China, right now China has nothing substantial to offer. The Philippine already gave up their claim on Sabah because Malaysia were willing to go tot war over it and the USA failed to live up to its commitment to fight on the side of the Philippines. China can not forcibly take those islands now because the risk of a sea war that would involve the USA is very likely plus the economic fall out on China will be heavy. China has to worry about a billion Chinese citizens that might go hungry while the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam only have a few millions to worry about.

 

That is because independence means war with mainland China, what the Taiwanese are forgetting they are already independent they are the Republic of China that is still at war with mainland communist China.

Taiwan don't want to become part of China's communist, Taiwan leaders wants to be become recognize co-equal rulers of a united China under a democratic system of Two Party or multi party not single party under the CCP.

 

HK and Macau were handed over to mainland China because of the lease due that was lease to Britain during the Opium war, China that was under the Qing agreed to lease HK not surrender after they lost the war. Both UK and China are not willing to go to war again and the solution is to terminate the recognition of the ROC with Pres. Nixon's visit to China in 1972 as the official China and flip over to PROC so that HK and Macau will not be handed over to the ROC but to PROC.

The ROC have always got the short end of the deal since 1945. The West (France, UK and USA were never a fan of the KMT or ROC).

The pro-Beijing government in Taiwan is not about surrendering Taiwan to China but more on slowly changing the CCP that will allow the KMT to become the second official political party of a united China. The flag will have to change to represent a new united China.

I believe that Taiwan-ROC have a better naval force than the PROC, a battle for the Spartly's might proof humiliating to the PROC.

 

Well you just ignored my argument and re-stated your own. Chinese nationalism and exceptionalism and modern versions of Chinese legalism and Confucianism, together with Marxism Leninism, do have the potential to create a very toxic situation in which certain elements of the Chinese elite will overreach themselves. You write as if this was a simple chess game with "well if Queen takes rook then bishop takes queen so that won't happen". In fact there are far more variables than that. An expectation that both parties will behave rationally is often a very stupid one. An expectation that Chinese leaders think like Western leaders is just plain wrong. Above all Chinese leaders are concerned with their own power and very little else. There are many circumtances where they may be desperate enough to gamble on a risk of war with the USA if they have to secure their political and power position. As with the June 4th incident, they often look to preserve their own power as a Group even if the heavens fall in as a result.

 

Again you ignore my post. What the f. has the President of the USA's recognition of the PRC in 1972 got to do with the fulfillment of treaty obligations of the UK, a nation which recognized the PRC in 1950? Whatever Nixon had done or the USA, HK would have been handed over to PRC by the UK. Nixon's visit was about US, not UK policy. UK policy was driven by its own interest, not that of the USA, and it always would have been when its own colonial possessions were concerned.

Well Chiang Kai Shek and Mao Zedong were both murdering tyrants. ROC just benefited from US influence to eventually develop into a democracy.

What a dreadful proposition! I know the KMT are not about surrender. But the idea that we have to proceed with political parties that arose from a feudal warlord era is depressing. Ultimately all these historical points are moot. Taiwanese people will support what is in their best interests. If a one country two systems approach could be genuiniely achieved, given the potential rise of China and its economic potential, Taiwanese people will do well to seek an accommodation. You though seem to ignore my point again (why do I bother, you don't just disagree, you refuse to even debate the arguments) that a one country, two systems solution could emerge without any "merger" being necessary. Hong Kong has non communist parties, a system of English common law where barristers where wigs and gweilo judges make rulings; it has a free press and a representative political system where everyone votes (but for now Beijing rigs the result). Why - apart from the fact that Hong Kong still has a few years to go to get rid of the BJ veto - cannot this be a model for Taiwan. History will not prevent people from choosing what is in their self interest

I believe that PRC is not concerned with the ROC's claim. It is the same as that of PRC - that the Spratlys belong to China. The dispute is more with the Phillippines and Vietnam, with PRC and Taiwan being on the same side.

 

Both the UK and USA have to be on the same page, and they have both demonstrated that since the end of WWII to be so from the UN 181 partition of Palestine, Korean War, Vietnam war, Afghan war, Bosnia war and Iraq war the wmd story, UK have align herself with that of the USA.

UK recognize the PROC in 1950 while the USA recognize the ROC at the same time ROC was a member of UN security council. To make the hand over smoothly and avoid or invalidate any objection from the ROC, the USA have to recognize only ONE China or else the hand over will be deem invalid or open to UN resolution which the ROC is a permanent member and part of the security council, the likelihood of the hand over will not be recognize as long as the ROC is recognize as the official China the ROC will have legitimate claim over HK.

While Mao continued to murder Chinese citizens and nearly drag China into the ground while trying very hard to benefit from the Soviets. PRC just like ROC is now more productive and prosperous thanks to the USA.

The KMT was not base on feudal warlords it was base on modern western democracy that was able to demonstrate itself successfully by transforming Taiwan into the most productive and modern Nation Island in about 10 years time 1952 - 1962 and it is this system that the PRC has also adapted minus the multi party system.

I have not ignore your one country two system. if you have read my post I said that One country Two system is not what the ROC is seeking but a Two Party system a chance to govern a united China. The One country Two system is only acceptable to countries or regions like HK that does not seek sovereignty. In fact, the British back then in the 1980s were negotiating with the PRC for HK sovereignty that PRC rejected.

The KMT is hoping that the CCP will soon allow Two Party system just like the KMT did after ruling Taiwan for about 25 years the KMT lifted martial law and allowed other political parties to govern Taiwan through electoral voting.

Chinese people are mature enough to be able to handle a western style democratic system.

The relationship and tolerance of the PRC and ROC towards each other is not the same as that of the Philippines. While the PRC and ROC tolerate fisherman from both sides the Philippines do not. At the same time the the PRC and ROC will not tolerate any military or political leaders setting foot on islands that they have claim, so far they have respected each other's claims.

 

part is true, but both taiwan/china share same language, culture, background etc etc. so i don't believe they want to be separete from china, least thats what i heard from some taiwanese friend. its kind like NK/S.korean, they want to unify, but the government is different which make it impossible. if chinas economy/living condition/political freedom change, taiwan could very well integrate back into china.

in a sense taiwan is already act as an independent country so most taiwaness don't really care about independence.

 

Yes they share same culture but support different ideology. The Taiwanese prefer the present status quo which is not to unite with communist China and wait for mainland China to become less communist. At present that is what we are noticing the mainland is becoming less communist and hopefully that would translate to accepting political changes that would allow two party system, the CCP and the KMT, giving the KMT the opportunity to govern a united China through a democratic electoral process.

 

When exactly did UK handed over Macau to China?

 

Despite its social imperfections, China is quickly becoming a new destination for illegal immigrants from developed and developing countries.

A total of 52.11 million foreigners entered and left China in 2010, 2.33 times as many as 10 years ago. Last year, China cracked down on about 20,000 illegal immigrants.

Beijing is attracting an ever-increasing number of foreigners interested in work opportunities brought about by the nation's rapid economic growth, as compared to stagnant job markets back home. According to the state-run Beijing Morning Post, which quoted police authorities, there are on average almost 200,000 foreigners in the capital on any given day -- including long-term residents and short-term visitors.

Police in Beijing on May 14 launched a 100-day campaign urging citizens to report on foreigners illegally living or working in the capital, after a British man allegedly tried to rape a woman. It is unclear whether the crackdown is directly linked to the alleged sexual assault last week.

The disturbing three-minute video surfaced on the Internet last week and has been viewed more than 8 million times on the Chinese video-sharing website youku.com, provoking outrage across China’s web-sphere.

Police crack down on illegal foreigners in Beijing
http://news.yahoo.com/police-crack-down-illegal-foreigners-beijing-063616440.html

Brit tourist sexually assaults Chinese woman in Beijing, anti-laowai cyber hysteria ensues
http://shanghaiist.com/2012/05/11/anti-laowai_cyber-rhetoric_grows_st.php

Beijing cracks down on expat community
http://www.travelwireasia.com/7739/beijing-cracks-down-on-expat-community/

Beijing Cream
http://beijingcream.com/2012/05/the...to-get-charged-in-assault-case-except-victim/

Is China’s crackdown on foreigners about crime or illegal immigration?
http://behindthewall.msnbc.msn.com/...gners-about-crime-or-illegal-immigration?lite

video clip
http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMzkzNDY5ODI0.html

 

Macua unlike HK was granted sovereignty under Portuguese rule by the Qing government back in 1850, Hong Kong was lease to UK for 99 years. When the ROC was expel as the official representative of China in favour of PROC in 1974, Portugal who recognize the ROC since the 1950s switch it's official stance recognizing the PROC.

Macau actually is qualified to become an independent nation during the decolonization bit but because of pressure from PROC and at the same time UK has agreed to hand over HK to PROC, Portugal was in no position to resist PROC. Macau citizens were never given the chance to vote if they want to be part of PROC, ROC, remain part of Portugal or independence.

 

This is just wrong. The UK is often on the same page as the USA but certainly not always and very defintely not with respect to its policy in China and South East Asia.

The USA used WW2 to consciously damage and weaken the UK as the UK was seen as a global competitor for world dominance. Lend lease was part of this but it was also clear that the USA wanted Hong Kong to revert to Chinese rule at the end of WW2. The USA were not supportive of UK imperial policy in the Malay peninsula either. The UK was stabbed in the back by the USA over Suez. The UK was not involved in the Vietnam war. It would be very strange for the UK to have an identical foreign policy to the USA throughout a period when the UK was dismantling its Empire. There were indeed common interests but there were also many competing ones, not least commercial.

UK recognize the PROC in 1950 while the USA recognize the ROC at the same time ROC was a member of UN security council. To make the hand over smoothly and avoid or invalidate any objection from the ROC, the USA have to recognize only ONE China or else the hand over will be deem invalid or open to UN resolution which the ROC is a permanent member and part of the security council, the likelihood of the hand over will not be recognize as long as the ROC is recognize as the official China the ROC will have legitimate claim over HK.




While Mao continued to murder Chinese citizens and nearly drag China into the ground while trying very hard to benefit from the Soviets. PRC just like ROC is now more productive and prosperous thanks to the USA.



The KMT was not base on feudal warlords it was base on modern western democracy that was able to demonstrate itself successfully by transforming Taiwan into the most productive and modern Nation Island in about 10 years time 1952 - 1962 and it is this system that the PRC has also adapted minus the multi party system.

I have not ignore your one country two system. if you have read my post I said that One country Two system is not what the ROC is seeking but a Two Party system a chance to govern a united China. The One country Two system is only acceptable to countries or regions like HK that does not seek sovereignty. In fact, the British back then in the 1980s were negotiating with the PRC for HK sovereignty that PRC rejected.

The KMT is hoping that the CCP will soon allow Two Party system just like the KMT did after ruling Taiwan for about 25 years the KMT lifted martial law and allowed other political parties to govern Taiwan through electoral voting.

Chinese people are mature enough to be able to handle a western style democratic system.



The relationship and tolerance of the PRC and ROC towards each other is not the same as that of the Philippines. While the PRC and ROC tolerate fisherman from both sides the Philippines do not. At the same time the the PRC and ROC will not tolerate any military or political leaders setting foot on islands that they have claim, so far they have respected each other's claims.