China-US-Taiwan Economic (Temp closed-pls read my last post)

solarz said:

I think it's important for the Chinese government to clarify Li Kexin's words. What exactly in the anti-secession law calls for China to initiate military action in the even of an American warship docking at a Taiwanese port?

I understand that Li is referring to a foreign military vessel visiting a port without the host nation's permission. However, it is not immediately clear why this would fall under the anti-secession law.

I think Li's words, as they are, puts China in a bad spot diplomatically and strategically.

Click to expand...

Why so? I mean, Li did not say anything that is not in line with well-known Chinese official position regardless the ground of military action. Whether the anti-secession law applies in this scenario or not does not make any difference, does it?

As I said earlier, the deniability, I can come up with many words for the MoF already,

1. Li's words were taken out of contexts.
2. Li was expressing his personal understanding. China's position is clear and has been repeated many times.

For the reason (deniability) it is really hard to catch China in a corner for what Li just said.

Icmer said:

The message is clearly directed toward the domestic audience as well. Perhaps no one is addressing the Weibo post because accessing Weibo is slower when not logged into an account in foreign countries. Let me emphasize that it has over 105,000 likes, 20,000 comments, and 27,000 shares - making it the #1 non-celebrity post on Weibo for December 9th. Sina Weibo's trending section is heavily curated by official censors. The fact that the post made it this far is highly indicative of the government's position on the matter.

Click to expand...

I don't think so, at least not the intension.
You may have noticed that:

1. He revealed his "threat" during a meeting with Chinese in US.
2. The video circulated on YouTube was stamped with Traditional Chinese texts.
3. The first media outlet who picked it up was from Taiwan.
4. It is ONLY picked up by mainland web later.

How could this message be aiming (intension) at domestic audience if it has to be passed by oversea Chinese and Taiwanese media? If you want "出口转内销" (export-then-reimport) something for domestic customer, you must make sure that someone is willing to do that job for you.

taxiya said:

I don't think so, at least not the intension.
You may have noticed that:

1. He revealed his "threat" during a meeting with Chinese in US.
2. The video circulated on YouTube was stamped with Traditional Chinese texts.
3. The first media outlet who picked it up was from Taiwan.
4. It is ONLY picked up by mainland web later.

How could this message be aiming (intension) at domestic audience if it has to be passed by oversea Chinese and Taiwanese media? If you want "出口转内销" (export-then-reimport) something for domestic customer, you must make sure that someone is willing to do that job for you.

Click to expand...

My wording was inaccurate. I meant to say "The message has been directed toward the domestic audience as well [by the official media.]"

You are too fixated on the fact that it was the Taiwanese media that picked up on the story first. My personal belief is that Li's words have the full backing of the Chinese state, given the lack of any perceptible pushback against his message in domestic media.

Icmer said:

My wording was inaccurate. I meant to say "The message has been directed toward the domestic audience as well [by the official media.]"

You are too fixated on the fact that it was the Taiwanese media that picked up on the story first. My personal belief is that Li's words have the full backing of the Chinese state, given the lack of any perceptible pushback against his message in domestic media.

Click to expand...

I am not aware of any official media in mainland China on this topic. Weibo is not.

Yes, he has the full backing of Chinese state. There is no need for any pushback because what he said was pretty much based on sovereignty.

The reason that I emphasize "Taiwanese picked up first" is to identify who is most excited by this revelation, it is Taiwan, not mainland. If as you suggested, the primary audience is domestic, then he would have held a meeting in a Chinese university. I believe the "directed toward domestic audience" is only a by-product, not the first/primary purpose.

At the end, I don't think this revelation deserve much attention by us. It is not really something new or big in its own right.

taxiya said:

I am not aware of any official media in mainland China on this topic. Weibo is not.

Yes, he has the full backing of Chinese state. There is no need for any pushback because what he said was pretty much based on sovereignty.

The reason that I emphasize "Taiwanese picked up first" is to identify who is most excited by this revelation, it is Taiwan, not mainland. If as you suggested, the primary audience is domestic, then he would have held a meeting in a Chinese university. I believe the "directed toward domestic audience" is only a by-product, not the first/primary purpose.

Click to expand...

I suppose it makes sense for you to clarify this distinction for general information purposes, but I myself was never speaking from any position of ignorance regarding the intended audiences of the message. It may seem pedantic for me to focus on semantics, but notice how my initial post included "as well" after "The message was directed at the domestic audience." This should've implied my acknowledgement of other audiences (Taiwan, US) for which the message was intended.

taxiya said:

Why so? I mean, Li did not say anything that is not in line with well-known Chinese official position regardless the ground of military action. Whether the anti-secession law applies in this scenario or not does not make any difference, does it?

As I said earlier, the deniability, I can come up with many words for the MoF already,

1. Li's words were taken out of contexts.
2. Li was expressing his personal understanding. China's position is clear and has been repeated many times.

For the reason (deniability) it is really hard to catch China in a corner for what Li just said.

Click to expand...

The problem is that Li is a high ranking official, and his comments have been picked up by US mainstream media:



So if the US decides to send warships to dock in Taiwan anyway, what should China do? Start a war over a relatively inconsequential gesture? Or do nothing and erode its credibility?

For this reason, the central government needs to step up and clarify Li's words. If they were taken out of context, say so. If it does or doesn't represent official MOD policy, say so.

Icmer said:

I suppose it makes sense for you to clarify this distinction for general information purposes, but I myself was never speaking from any position of ignorance regarding the intended audiences of the message. It may seem pedantic for me to focus on semantics, but notice how my initial post included "as well" after "The message was directed at the domestic audience." This should've implied my acknowledgement of other audiences (Taiwan, US) for which the message was intended.

Click to expand...

Let me try to clarify and see if there is a misunderstanding on my side. I noticed that you said "as well".
From that "as well" and the underlined texts above, I understood that you see both domestic and Taiwan/US are intended audiences. Right?
My opinion is that ONLY US congressman was his intended target of "threat", ONLY those oversea Chinese were his intended audience for the revelation. ONLY because Taiwanese media picked it up and reported widely, could mainlanders hear it. So mainlanders were NOT his intended audience.
I hope this makes myself clear.

solarz said:

The problem is that Li is a high ranking official, and his comments have been picked up by US mainstream media:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So if the US decides to send warships to dock in Taiwan anyway, what should China do? Start a war over a relatively inconsequential gesture? Or do nothing and erode its credibility?

Click to expand...

Let's not get into a hypothetic war. But I must say that docking at Taiwan harbor does leave China no room for maneuver. And I don't expect Xi is going to do nothing. An "Amethyst Incident" type of incident could happen again.

For this reason, the central government needs to step up and clarify Li's words. If they were taken out of context, say so. If it does or doesn't represent official MOD policy, say so.

Click to expand...

If I have made a blatant "threat", I would not go forward and repeat it, it does not make me look good, and my purpose has been served. That is how I expect MoF will do, keep silent.

To have these words out, someone has to ask first. MoF spokesperson is not going to say anything if nobody asks. Question is who is allowed to ask. Any western media who dare to ask when MoF does not want to answer has to think about if they want to be invited next time. Some of them were recently barred from media conference for example. Or the spokesperson will simply "not" seeing their raised hand if spokesperson anticipate what they will ask. After all "it is my house, my rule".

AndrewS said:

@Orthan

Would the United States of America recognise the independence of a rival Confederate States of America?

Click to expand...

What does their current constitution say about it?

taxiya said:

Let me try to clarify and see if there is a misunderstanding on my side. I noticed that you said "as well".
From that "as well" and the underlined texts above, I understood that you see both domestic and Taiwan/US are intended audiences. Right?
My opinion is that ONLY US congressman was his intended target of "threat", ONLY those oversea Chinese were his intended audience for the revelation. ONLY because Taiwanese media picked it up and reported widely, could mainlanders hear it. So mainlanders were NOT his intended audience.
I hope this makes myself clear.

Click to expand...

The mainland audience may not have been on embassy minister Li's mind when he issued the threat, but the way the mainland media reported on it so freely is extremely telling. I must emphasize again the lack of official pushback, since it's well-established reality that the government exerts efficient and comprehensive control on what stories can be reported on and shown in domestic media. You said before that Weibo is not official media, but this distinction is less important than you might think. Many leaked government statements regarding content that can and cannot be shown on Weibo essentially amounted to official edicts on censorship. Cooperation with official censorship policy on Weibo has become quicker and more efficient in the past year due to recent public discontent from officials about past excessive dissemination of disapproved content through microblogging services. The government has clearly made some sort of decision as to whether Li's message was too extreme or inaccurate to be widely disseminated domestically.