Talk:China declares "the state shall employ nonpeaceful means"

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

PRC's passing of the Anti-Secession law, though may be regarded as the legal basis for PLA's possible deployment of non-peaceful means to "re-unify" "China", but it should NOT mean directly that China will declare war on Taiwan, in the forseeable future, as suggested in the heading and some parts of the article.

King Ho Cheung 01:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am sincerely sorry you feel that way, but I stand by the report, based upon the following central quote:
"If possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted, the state shall employ nonpeaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity," announced Deputy Chairman Wang Zhaoguo.
This law formally presents, for the first time, a direct, and explicit legal justification to declare war on Taiwan if China judges that reunification negotiations have failed.
I apologize, but I cannot bury my head in the sand and kowtow to the "war is peace" crowd.
DV 05:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan is an unattainable part of China. It's a purely internal Chinese matter.

-Pavel T., Moscow

So, the debate here is not over the accuracy of validity of the story, but over the politics that fall out of it?! Why is this being held in dispute, exactly? — Ajs 14:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, this story is fairly neutral, however given that China seems to view Taiwan and other regions that historically it has rulled as being defacto parts of it's state I can understand why it comes across as Bias... It suposes that Taiwan is an independant state. Any scholar in this mater will realise that even taiwan's people themselves are divided over the matter... more than 60% of taiwanese have direct mainlain decent.. and this is reflected in the point of contestion over it's independance... Personally I go for the rationalist approach which is.... Taiwan for all intents and reasons is independant, if china were to embrace this rather than dispute it both countries would get more done... My reaction is publish it... Perhaps alter the headline.. How about China creates legal precident for use of force against succeders ( yeah I can't spell)

I doubt most people actually believe China will militarily strike at Taiwan and are alarmed at any insinuation that they might. I think political "posturing" is the angle to pursue in this piece while down playing blustering quotes from the Taiwan side. Edbrown05 08:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Posturing? That's an interesting take, but here's why China is doing a lot more than posturing:
Hundreds of ballistic missiles are already pointed at Taiwan, and that number grows each year.
The PLA employs over 2.5 million personnel.
The annual Chinese military budget is published as just shy of US$30 billion, but many analysts believe the annual budget is several times that, possibly more than US$100 billion. And the rate of growth this year alone is almost 13 percent.
The US has a military budget that is either ten times or triple the budget of China's, depending on which numbers you believe. The US barely gave a second thought to invading two different countries (Afghanistan and Iraq), because the US has a military that is large enough to make it seem possible to do so with little chance of failure.
Growing at double-digit annual rates, it won't be long before the Chinese military budget approaches that of the US. The Chinese government will then be able to look at forcibly integrating Taiwan as a very feasible project.
Also, there is popular support for retaking Taiwan should negotiations fail. Many of the mainland Chinese citizens I have met fiercely believe that Taiwan is a part of China, and heartily support their government's proclamations that reunification must eventually take place, and that it is an "internal matter" as Pavel points out above.
Part of this support is due to popular Chinese culture. During major holidays, military shows with troops saluting the audience are a sure-fire crowd pleaser - there are even Chinese soap operas whose stars bound out of tanks or jeeps to salute their commanders after elaborate military exercises. I was especially struck during my last trip to China, when I saw karaoke bar patrons choose military songs to sing along with, in between bittersweet romantic ballads.
Time is not on the side of peace in this matter. The longer China waits, the more heavily the US can arm Taiwan to defend against a potential attack. It's actually in China's interests to attack Taiwan as soon as possible, purely as a cost-savings measure, as the expense of preparing for an attack could become unmanageable in future decades if the US tries the same trick they employed with the Soviets (trying to spend their opponent into bankruptcy without ever having to fire a shot).
Perhaps the growing Chinese military is just a bluff, but it's an awfully expensive bluff for the sacrifices they are making in other areas of their own country's development to support such large military expenditures.
I sincerely hope you're right that this is all a bluff or posturing, but the evidence suggests otherwise.
DV 11:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The points you make on posturing are well taken by me. There is good reason for concern.
After re-reading the piece, perhaps what I really meant to say was the large number of quotes cited comes across as being "bluster" by the proponents from each side of the issue. Bluster is inherently inflamatory.
This piece is still news and I added a link in 'sources' for this article. I hope to undertake some editing to update the story.
--Edbrown05 16:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did a re-write (anonymously by accident!).

The headline needs changed. perhaps -->China and Taiwan: war of words

--Edbrown05 20:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removing dispute tags[edit]

I've removed the dispute tags as, after Edbrown's rewrite, there was no further discussion of disputed elements. - Amgine 03:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)