Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread

[Infanteer]

Ok Stop.

Rice, you were wrong, and you got called on it.  Just let it go and move on with the debate.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

I hate to beat a dead horse, but I work in an office where only two of us are not Taiwanese ... pretty all of the men here are (obviously) ex-military.  I asked, and every single one of them told me that military service in PRC is NOT mandatory.

I think there may be a bit of a language barrier here: the way I understand it China has what they call an annual 'conscription' but it's more akin to what we would call a 'recruiting drive'.  They recruit officer candidates out of universities and those that sign-up get benefits such as free tuition and 'priority' for employment at the end of their term of service.  I don't know what China's actual laws are, but in practice service is not mandatory, even for NCMs.

Rice, I think you might be right, but for the sake of civility please respect what Ex-Dragoon (et.al.) wrote above ...

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Conscription and the Peoples Republic of China! It sure is amazing that if you google it what you will find.  :

http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/hl669.cfm
http://english.people.com.cn/english/200011/01/eng20001101_54120.html
http://english.people.com.cn/200310/31/eng20031031_127255.shtml
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/C/Co/Conscription.htm

Plus lots and lots more.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Take a look at some more of links you must have found on Google or whatever:  China has an involuntary conscription policy (i.e., it is on the books) however it is not mandatory in practice.  If you read the links you provided to People's Daily I think you will see what I was talking about (re: language barrier, specifically the misuse of the word 'conscription' as we understand it: the reference to "well-performing students" should be a little bit of a warning against taking the wording verbatim).

At any rate, I fear the (as yet unproven) idea that "almost their entire force is made up of conscripts" dangerously underestimates their capability ... from what I understand, and is reflected in some of the posts above, China's military has changed drastically since 1979 (including a great deal of force reduction).

 

[steve-o]

The Chinese won't let the island of Taiwan go without a fight, and that is the final answer.

I think the island of Taiwan has been gone for over 50 years now, it is just that Taipei hasn't officially declared itself independent - the lynchpin of the entire problem! Taiwan can probably remain as is indefinitely as long as it doesn't talk too loudly of being separate. In that way, I do believe it is similar to Quebec! Except that Canada has no teeth unlike China. (OK we have  extraordinary teeth , just not a complete set)
Steve

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I think the island of Taiwan has been gone for over 50 years now, it is just that Taipei hasn't officially declared itself independent - the lynchpin of the entire problem! Taiwan can probably remain as is indefinitely as long as it doesn't talk too loudly of being separate. In that way, I do believe it is similar to Quebec! Except that Canada has no teeth unlike China. (OK we have  extraordinary teeth , just not a complete set)
Steve

Actually, you may want to check your history.   Taiwan was NEVER part of China.   This is a fantasy created by the PRC to formalize their land claims.

The island was first populated by Malay tribes, became their own republic I believe in the late 1800's which lasted a very short time before they were occupied by the Japanese then independent for another   short time after WWII before being occupied by Chiang Kai-Shek (Nationalist Chinese).  

Bottom Line:   Taiwan has never been part of China, period, end of sentence, full stop.   Look it up if you don't believe me...

Cheers,



Matthew.    

 

[TCBF]

Well, that puts it all in a whole new light.

Except the Japanese Army used the natives for bayonet practice, so just about all that is left are the descendents of the Nationalists.  Who are, of course, Chinese.

I hope Taiwan has nukes. ;D

Tom

 

[Dare]

Take a look at some more of links you must have found on Google or whatever:  China has an involuntary conscription policy (i.e., it is on the books) however it is not mandatory in practice.  If you read the links you provided to People's Daily I think you will see what I was talking about (re: language barrier, specifically the misuse of the word 'conscription' as we understand it: the reference to "well-performing students" should be a little bit of a warning against taking the wording verbatim).

At any rate, I fear the (as yet unproven) idea that "almost their entire force is made up of conscripts" dangerously underestimates their capability ... from what I understand, and is reflected in some of the posts above, China's military has changed drastically since 1979 (including a great deal of force reduction).

I think if you read what Ex-Dragoon said you'll notice he said selective conscription, which is an accurate discription of China's policy and effectively what you said. It's not a misuse of the word. If conscription is on the books (which it is) and they are selecting to only choose volunteers (which it "seems" they are largely doing publicly, at least) then they have selective conscription. Most conscription is selective, they just have different criteria. It is unusual for a military force to not enforce conscription laws, but when you have 13 million new military aged men a year, you can afford to be even more selective by signing up volunteers only. Now it does seem to be silly having a conscription law you don't need, but it's not the fault of any language barrier. It's the fault of a government that doesn't even follow it's own rules.

 

[Dare]

Actually, you may want to check your history.  Taiwan was NEVER part of China.  This is a fantasy created by the PRC to formalize their land claims.

The island was first populated by Malay tribes, became their own republic I believe in the late 1800's which lasted a very short time before they were occupied by the Japanese then independent for another  short time after WWII before being occupied by Chiang Kai-Shek (Nationalist Chinese). 

Bottom Line:  Taiwan has never been part of China, period, end of sentence, full stop.  Look it up if you don't believe me...

Cheers,



Matthew.   

The problem occurs in the wording, again. "Taiwan" is actually the Republic of China. So, technically, it is a part of China. It would be more accurate to say the island of Taiwan has never been in communist control or under the authority of the People's Republic of China.

 

[dutchie]

I think your getting a little too technical in wording here. Everyone knows what you mean when you say 'Taiwan'.

 

[Dare]

I think your getting a little too technical in wording here. Everyone knows what you mean when you say 'Taiwan'.

Details, like the name of a country, are not trivial.

 

[a_majoor]

China's Strategy
They're happy to let us worry about North Korea while they assemble long-term plans to counter American hegemony.
by Tom Donnelly
03/16/2005 12:00:00 AM

PERHAPS THE WISEST WORDS ever uttered--or attributed--to Ronald Reagan were: Don't just do something, sit there.
Would that the Gipper were still around to guide U.S. strategy toward North Korea and the "Six Party Talks" meant to deal with Pyongyang's nuclear program. Every time an American starts wringing his hands over the failure of the talks, someone in Beijing smiles contentedly. While we're whipping ourselves over the fact that the North Koreans won't come back to the table--which, actually, is supposed to be China's responsibility--Beijing is advancing its other interests, particularly in putting pressure on Taiwan. The more frustrated and fixated we get, the better the Chinese like it.
Democrats, in particular, are obsessed by the idea that North Korea's nukes are the most important security issue in East Asia. This was candidate John Kerry's position and former Defense Secretary William Perry has roundly criticized the Bush administration for "outsourcing"--that is, engaging in multilateral diplomacy only--the job of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula. These weapons, he insists, constitute an "imminent danger."
They are exactly that, but the only way to get the North Koreans to even consider getting rid of their nukes or stopping their nuclear program is to offer them a "non-aggression" pact that forswears not only the use of armed force but the policy of "regime change" in Pyongyang. Other liberal commentators, like Selig Harrison, don't think the North has the nukes, but thinks we should guarantee the safety of the Kim regime anyway. Quite rightly, the administration thinks that's too much to pay, even for the best arms control deal. The fundamental problem is the North Korean regime, not the weapons. North Korea--with its million-man army, thousands of artillery pieces, and rockets able to reach Seoul--was an imminent threat before it had nuclear weapons and will be an imminent threat if it gets rid of them.
But even as proliferation mania distorts U.S. policy toward the Korean peninsula, it also fuzzes our China strategy beyond recognition. The combination of September 11 and North Korean nukes puts us in the position of begging for Chinese help on two fronts where they can't or won't do much and diverts our attention from those issues where China is of greatest concern; we've taken Chinese priorities as our own. Little wonder that Beijing wants to string out the Six Party Talks to eternity and has been trying to portray its repression of Turkic Uighurs in western China as actions against Islamic terrorists.
In short, the United States continues to look through the wrong end of the telescope. We're thus blinded to a whole host of worrying developments that reveal China's progress as a geopolitical--and increasingly global--competitor. The Chinese "legislature" just passed an "anti-secession law" that not only "legitimizes" an attack on Taiwan but greater internal repression as well; the Beijing government sees secessionists everywhere. China is beginning to string together a necklace of client states in the oil-rich Middle East--Iran and Sudan, to name two--and even into the Americas, cozying up to Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez. Venezuela supplies about 13 percent of daily U.S. oil imports, and just as Beijing fears the U.S. Navy's ability to sever China's connection to international energy markets, China wouldn't mind being able to return the favor with Chavez's help.

Even during the Cold War, the United States has never had a comprehensive strategy for East Asia; all our security arrangements have been bilateral, one-on-one affairs. Since the collapse of the Soviet empire and the initiation of the age of American hyperpower, things have only gotten worse, through two Bush presidencies and two Clinton terms. While we try to deal with individual issues and wait until a time of crisis--as with North Korea--Beijing patiently works out a strategy of unraveling the Pax Americana.

Tom Donnelly is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a contributing writer to The Daily Standard.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

And what is Canada doing?


Matthew.    

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By GEOFFREY YORK

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Beijing - A controversial new roof-of-the-world railway, branded as a threat to Tibet's cultural survival, will begin operation next year with heavy participation from two major Canadian companies.

Nortel Networks Corp. and Bombardier Inc. have been awarded contracts to provide key elements for the spectacular mountaintop railway that could carry up to 100,000 Chinese migrants into Tibet every month.

The Canadian firms are confident their technology can endure the harsh conditions on the railway line - including subzero temperatures, low oxygen, sandstorms, permafrost and some of the most forbidding mountains in the world.

Montreal-based Bombardier will provide the railway with hundreds of special high-tech train cars with enriched oxygen systems and extra protection against ultraviolet rays, while Nortel will supply its wireless communication system.

The Chinese project, the highest-altitude railway in the world, is gaining fame for its extraordinary construction methods in blasting through ice and laying tracks above the permafrost on mountains up to 5,000 metres high.

But it is also provoking fears that it will pave the way for the cultural assimilation and political colonization of the two million Tibetans who live in the region.

The railway line is so far above sea level that its trains will have to be sealed and pressurized like aircraft cabins. Altitude sickness is a daily threat to the 100,000 construction workers who are toiling on the project. The railway tracks will be elevated to keep them above the permafrost as it thaws and buckles on summer days.

The $3.2-billion (U.S.) railway line, due to begin operating in June of 2006, will stretch more than 1,140 kilometres from the city of Golmud, in western China, to the Tibetan capital of Lhasa. The project has been a dream of Chinese rulers since the early years of the last century, although it was long thought to be impossible to build.

Nortel announced Wednesday that the Chinese Railways Ministry has selected the Brampton, Ont.-based firm to provide the digital wireless communications network for the Tibet railway. It will be the first Chinese commercial use of the wireless technology, known as GSM for Railways, and it will be the first in China to operate without a traditional analog system for backup.

"As a landmark project for China to develop its western region, Nortel is pleased to provide the communications system that will help ignite and power the region's economic growth,â ? Robert Mao, president of Nortel's China operations, said in a statement Wednesday.

He said Nortel was awarded the contract after passing all required tests during a year-long trial of its technology on a 186-kilometre stretch of track at altitudes up to 4,780 metres.

A consortium led by Bombardier has been awarded a $281-million contract to produce 361 rail cars for the Tibet line, including 308 standard cars and 53 special tourist cars. Bombardier's share of the contract is worth $78-million.

The tourist cars will include luxury sleeping rooms with individual showers and cars with panoramic views and luxury dining and entertainment. China expects that 900,000 tourists will travel on the Tibet railway every year.

"This project represents a very important technology challenge,â ? Zhang Jianwei, the chief Bombardier representative in China, said in a statement late last month.

Human rights activists are worried the two Canadian companies could be helping China to swamp the Tibetan culture and assimilate the population into China's ethnic Han majority. They note that relatively few Tibetans have been included among the 100,000 construction workers on the project.

"There have been serious concerns raised by Tibetan groups regarding the negative impact of the railroad itself and also about discriminatory hiring practices in its construction,â ? said Carole Samdup, a program officer at Rights & Democracy, a human rights organization in Montreal that was created by the Canadian Parliament. "Canadian companies who participate in this initiative may find themselves accused of complicity in a variety of human rights violations.â ?

In a detailed report on the railway project in 2003, the International Campaign for Tibet concluded the railway will further militarize the Tibetan Plateau, jeopardize its environment, and trigger a population influx that represents "a significant threat to the livelihoods and culture of the Tibetan people, as well as to their prospect for achieving genuine political autonomy.â ?

The Canadian firms rejected the criticism of their role.

"Nortel categorically rejects in the strongest possible terms that it would participate in repressing the human rights or democratic rights of any individuals,â ? said Marion MacKenzie, vice-president of corporate communications at Nortel.

Hélène Gagnon, a spokeswoman for Bombardier, said the firm cannot comment on any political questions about the Tibet railway. "Any political issues in Tibet are between the citizens and their government.â ?

© The Globe and Mail

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[dutchie]

Details, like the name of a country, are not trivial.

Next we'll start arguing over 'the occupied territory of Palestine', or whether it's Serbo-Croat,Croatian,Serbian or Swahili. "No, I want Kava, not Kafa you ignorant slut!"

Purely semantics.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Next we'll start arguing over 'the occupied territory of Palestine', or whether it's Serbo-Croat,Croatian,Serbian or Swahili. "No, I want Kava, not Kafa you ignorant slut!"

Purely semantics.

Taiwan is actually much more clear-cut than Palestine-Israel, and it's in the favour of the Taiwanese.

The only reason this whole absurdity isn't dismissed out of hand is world corporations salavating over a market of 1+ billion.

Greed is a terrible thing....



M.    ???

 

[Spr.Earl]

Asians have patience when it comes to a goal.
China has a goal and her goal is to win economically if not by Arms in the future.
They are trying to buy Noranda Mines the worlds largest mining company which is Canadian,they have invested in the Tar Sands big time!!

So should we all start learning Mandarin?

 

[Dare]

Next we'll start arguing over 'the occupied territory of Palestine', or whether it's Serbo-Croat,Croatian,Serbian or Swahili. "No, I want Kava, not Kafa you ignorant slut!"

Purely semantics.

I don't see how giving the proper title of a country is semantic. It's not you say he says. Taiwan itself says and everyone agrees. They are the Republic of China. There's nothing to argue about here, unless you want to talk about Palestine.

 

[Infanteer]

Semantics is right - are we just trying to play the "well, I am smarter then you - it is actually the ROC!" game?   Does it really move the discussion anywhere?

One of my good buddies in University was from there - when I asked him where he was from, he certainly didn't say "Republic of China".

PS: Everyone please remember that, next time we discuss North Korea, that it is not North Korea but the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.   Please refer to the CIA World Factbook before using common vernacular, lest you offend someone's sensabilities.

Sheesh.... :

 

[Dare]

Semantics is right - are we just trying to play the "well, I am smarter then you - it is actually the ROC!" game?  Does it really move the discussion anywhere?

One of my good buddies in University was from there - when I asked him where he was from, he certainly didn't say "Republic of China".

PS: Everyone please remember that, next time we discuss North Korea, that it is not North Korea but the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.  Please refer to the CIA World Factbook before using common vernacular, lest you offend someone's sensabilities.

Sheesh.... :

As I was trying to say in response to this: "Bottom Line:  Taiwan has never been part of China, period, end of sentence, full stop.  Look it up if you don't believe me..."

This is an inaccurate statement. The reason for my response is not some sort of "wow I'm so smart, look at me" thing. If I wanted to bask in the glory of my meager intellect, I'd go join MENSA and chat about rubik's cubes. I'm trying to explain a very key aspect here, that not many people are aware of, (while perhaps you or the poster who replied are). It's not semantic, and it's not trivial. It's the *entire problem*. One side claims to be the legitimate China, while the other side does as well. Only one side can win here.

The title of Taiwan's Government Information Offices webpage:  "Government Information Office, Republic of China (Taiwan)". I don't think they view it as trivial or semantic, either. Certainly, both names are currently acceptable, but clearly, the Republic of China is not simply achored to the island of Taiwan. It's a very important distinction if one is to understand the situation.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

As I was trying to say in response to this: "Bottom Line:   Taiwan has never been part of China, period, end of sentence, full stop.   Look it up if you don't believe me..."

This is an inaccurate statement. The reason for my response is not some sort of "wow I'm so smart, look at me" thing. If I wanted to bask in the glory of my meager intellect, I'd go join MENSA and chat about rubik's cubes. I'm trying to explain a very key aspect here, that not many people are aware of, (while perhaps you or the poster who replied are). It's not semantic, and it's not trivial. It's the *entire problem*. One side claims to be the legitimate China, while the other side does as well. Only one side can win here.

The title of Taiwan's Government Information Offices webpage:   "Government Information Office, Republic of China (Taiwan)". I don't think they view it as trivial or semantic, either. Certainly, both names are currently acceptable, but clearly, the Republic of China is not simply achored to the island of Taiwan. It's a very important distinction if one is to understand the situation.

You're still wrong, so I'll try to say this as clearly as I can.

1)   Historically, the island of Taiwan has NEVER been part of China.
2)   Chiang Kai-Shek when he occupied and independent Taiwan created the name "Republic of China" in the hopes it would grant him the legitimacy he would need to one day be able to retake the mainland, ergo the name.
3)   The fact that Chiang Kai Shek (an authoritarian) one day made a claim on the mainland and used the name "Republic of China" to legitimize that claim has nothing to do with a reverse claim by the mainland on the island which is complete fraud.

....and if you cannot get that through your head, MENSA wouldn't want you.




M.