razenwing

---

It seems like you’ve made up your mind somewhat, that’s not judgemental, just based on some language you used. let me try to reply as neutral as possible.

Why do you think supporting the KMT or closer ties with China is reasonable (or not)?

Let’s skip over all the broken historical promises and the history of the island, and just view KMT at its current platform.

Let’s first understand where they are basing this fantastical idea of negotiated peace from. During ex-President Ma, he signed ECFA and met with Xi in a historic first in Singapore, using framework he claimed existed as the 92 Accord, which stated that one China, but separate claim.

The good from that period is a high level of political stability where no country outside of Gambia dropped recognition of Taiwan.

What the KMT doesn’t remind people is the reality of the situation back then. Ma was able to achieve all these because he suppressed Taiwan’s international presence. While we lost no diplomatic recognition, we failed to secure any meaningful political and economic alliance, which is often more important than bought-for-recognition-countries. We accepted under classified ourselves as regions in many cases just to seek an attendance in international committees.

ECFA produced an immediate burst in GDP, but that burst was short term and non-sustainable. Fact is, elite class grew in wealth during that period, and specifically during this period that the housing market skyrocketed beyond affordability. The deal with China allowed China to gain access and technology that was not present at the time. SMB got obliterated as technology fled and resources consolidated amongst the few. Clearest example, check the market numbers and income figures for the administration’s 8 years, they are virtually stagnant. A lot of issues thst youth of Taiwan complain about today can be traced back to policies then.

All of these show signs to China that Taiwan was willing to capitulate eventually because they interpreted the 92 accord drastically differently. To them, there is no separate interpretation. There is one China, their China, and Taiwan is just waiting to rejoin.

The reality of the situation now is drastically different from his administration. We have over 10 years of data to evaluate Xi’s intention and the actual economic impact from dealing with China. In all cases, they were net negative except for the privileged class. Take example, South Korea. They saw what Ma did, and scholars urged their leader to do the same. Today, Korea is at risk of losing every single advantage they had outside of Samsung because of EUV sanction. They were leaders in ship building, electronics (LED and storage), and fabricators. Now, they lag behind I all of these industries from heavy to high tech because of their policies to bind with China. This is not even a threat analysis issue, is when you bind so heavily with single market with much lower cost, you will lose everything.

politically, we are stronger than ever with the major powers of the world. these include the EU, America’s, and Japan. and these predicated upon trust that we not give China the key to the silicon shield and another monopoly to world’s most precious resource.

KMT likes to tell you the good Ole days. But they don’t tell you the consequence of negating all the trust built up over the years with friends and allies, just to appease a dictator. Meanwhile, they put all faith in the hands of others instead of self to have peace, and they don’t tell you the political risk. They don’t tell you how Xi came into power as a hawk, not moderate, and ever since belts and road initiative failed, Xi needed a victory to prevent party discontent from spreading. Lying down now is signaling to China to have their easy history defining moment, which pragmatically speaking, even if you want to unconditionally surrender, is like the worst time to get a good deal.

Does continuing the current path necessitate a war? Maybe. But i would argue that by raising the cost of a historic victory sought by China, you stand a better chance to prevent wars than otherwise. Cause If China wants a war, he’s going to have a war outside of full unconditional surrender. And even KMT is not crazy enough to give that, so in reality, China wants to achieve that historical impact, and cause for war is present no matter how much KMT can give up for peace.

• How should historical crimes factor into present-day political choices?

You view “historical crimes” from the perspective of a Grand China theorist. We should understand that Taiwan was not subjugated by Japan. It was given willingly by the regime at the time, which was the Qin Dynasty. Japan also didn’t colonize in the ways of European exploitation of Africa. They governed and governed effectively. I am not going to say everyone was a happy camper under Japanese rule, but it certainly wasn’t filled with some mythical anger where everyone is longing for a return to Manchu rule. (which at the time, there’s is no China. China was an entirely new concept came up by early KMT to overthrow the Manchu for thr purpose of uniting as much ethnicities as possible under 1 banner to rebel against the regime.)

Was Nanjing massacre despicable? Sure, but any sane people would recognize that that regime has long collapsed. Any advance civilization would recognize the fault of people in-charge, but not the people themselves. Otherwise, the world will have so much beef to go around, lest not China itself. So much ethnicities either did crime against Han Chinese or were crimes against. If we really want to hold historical crime responsible, we may as well do a giant free for all and see who survived.

• How do people in China or pro-China communities view the risk of war versus resistance?

You know, if you judge from the response of very severed online community within China, they are like 90% pro war. If you think Xi is a great guy for holding that back, think again. Because invading Taiwan is never about some historical important event. I mean, it is, but it’s more important as a political tool, a trump card tucked away by Xi for when his own regime is in trouble. Then he can play that card and maybe displace that malcontent for a little while. (All the more reason not to give that to him)

How should Taiwan navigate survival without becoming a pawn of any major power?

Again with the language, our world is transactional. Would you say Costco is your pawn because it relies on you for profit? Ukraine is not a pawn. Taiwan is not a pawn. We are all doing transaction to keep the sovereignty in 1 piece. Being a pawn is a total submission, like Soviets with their satellite states, where they have 100% control over your livelihood. To see Taiwan as a pawn is having 0 sense of international politics. We take the security guarantee by forging stronger trades (key emphasis on trade, as we get somethign substantial in return like technology and money), not giving tributes. Which we would become a position of if we surrender to China. Then at best, we became a vassal state, or worst, just another front of China’s eventual war with the Pacific Fleet.

So yo your question, there is only 1 side that wants to make Taiwan a pawn, so the decision is really not hard at all.