Professor Lin Chung-Bin, a senior strategy analyst, summarized recent
behaviors made by the US, Japan, and China in his recent article. Heat He raised significant facts; however,
his comments on the facts smell odd. For
example, he concludes the “trend” across the Strait is negotiation, but not
armed conflict, suggesting that the military moves are political gestures or
stakes for further discussions. He also
concluded that China had avoided the war for four decades, implying that she
will continue to do the same in the future.
Whether Beijing is going to war or not is the issue we have to find out. Professor Lin’s comments were a kind of tautology. That is the principal nature of his comments after his retirement.
The author asks a critical question: Will international corporations invest in Taiwan under the scheme of the "Supply Chain Reconstruction" if Taiwan is the most dangerous place on earth from now on, according to the Financial Times.
作者提出了一个关键问题。据《金融时报》报道，如果台湾从现在开始是地球上最危险的地方，国际企业是否会在 "供应链重建 "的计划下投资台湾。（中文由DeepL翻譯，Taimocracy修正）
整合供應鏈 交給最危險的台灣？ 陳朝平＠中時 20210509
the meaningful participation” that US Secretary Blinken stated is nothing but a
lips favor. The effort of participation in UN institutions is costly for
Taiwan. Does it worth it?
Taiwan is “Big,” whenever the international community players intend to use Taiwan as a counterweight for their adversaries or a trigger for something. Otherwise, Taiwan is just a tip of a marker comparing to a desk. Know this unpleasant truth, and then Taiwan can start to choose its road map.
We have to pay the costly war bill, like it or not. The problem is the politicos, who care about
the next campaign, take the mutual defense from the allies for granted.
The defense bill may be up to Taiwan’s a century annual military budget. Who shall pay it? The politicos, with their pockets full, can immigrate to other countries.
I recommend this article, which reveals unpleasant truth.
It is my opinion: Taiwan is too significant for the parties involved to talk about in public. It will increase the U.S. and its allies to resist CCP’s expansion if the Taiwanese did not show the will and the investment to defend themselves. However, there is a third way in between the opposite twos.
The war is costly. Taiwanese has to pay the bill, though they have to pay it for a hundred-year installment in any form. The Taiwan independent activists have to recognize it, and the China unification activists have to face the purge after the war.
備戰才有和平 談美國學界對台灣的看法 湯先鈍＠自由 20210509
WHO approved the Chinese inactivated virus vaccine Sinopharm, meaning
Taiwan, which holds few AZ vaccines that are far less than needed to produce herd
immunity and are expired by mid-June, has faced disturbing pressure to purchase
The inactivated virus vaccine, or attenuated vaccine, such as like Sinophram, utilizes real viruses, only they are dead or reducing the virulence of a pathogen. For the SARS-Cov-2 is a novel virus, it is difficult to comprehend the whole mechanism of what will happens once the inactivated virus enters into human bodies.
We worry that Chinese authorities reluctant to share the pandemic data, the development of the vaccine is not transparent. How could we trust the attenuated vaccine developed in such a country?
The inactivated virus is an old-fashioned technology that ancient India has introduced for the fighting of Smallpox. The modern smallpox vaccine, using the live virus, was invented in the 18th century.
It is not to say that old-fashioned technologies are inferior. The risk is that the virus does not inactivate completely—the vaccination leads itself to the infection.
The U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken released a statement to urge
the WHO leadership for Taiwan to the World Health Assembly and others.
Although the statement entitled “restoring,” however, we see no such languages in it, except the terms of invitation and WHA.
What does Secretary Blinken mean? It is pretty much like to restore the situation before 2016, a yearly guest in WHA and WHO forum under the name of Chinese Taipei, a so-called “meaningful participation.”
A weather expert claimed that 2021 Taiwan’s plum
rain season, or the East Asian rainy season, has begun, according to the
character of the circumfluence.
However, the Pacific high-pressure area is so wide and strong that the Monsoon cannot overpass the South China Sea to Taiwan, as is expected. Checking the weather website “Windy,” the readers can find that the wind, including ground wind and 850hPa wind, is from east to west, contrary to the Monsoon.
It is no good to see that.
It seems to me that the G7 Joint Statement on 2021/05/05 is not that
radical, except the first time mentioning Taiwan.
The Joint Statement is a diplomatic document, which has to be latent and polite by its nature. Though they support Taiwan in the issue of WHO; however, what they support is “meaningful participation,” precisely the same level in this decade. But we find that it is NOT to support Taiwan's meaningful participation in the WHO, but the WHO’s FORUM. Taiwan is an annual guest to the WHA.
And the reason why the G7 supports Taiwan’s meaningful participation in the international community could benefit from the contribution of all partners. Taiwan is one example of all partners. The G7 does not support Taiwan directly but as an example.
For decades, the international community used the term “Taiwan issue” to address the security and peace of the region.
But the G7 introduces the term “cross-Taiwan issues,” a plural form to replace the former on “Taiwan issue,” indicating that China is also the one that should be responsible for the peace and security here.
Will PLA takedown Kinmen and Matsu before it invades Taiwan and Penghu?
There is an old saying that Mao Tse-dong intended to let Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek hold Kinmen and Matsu, so the latter would keep a dream to return to the Chinese mainland and never declare Taiwan independence to become a new country. Well, I still cannot see any solid explanation for that.
Like it or not, Kinmen and Matsu have some 150 thousand residents together. Like it or not, people here in Taiwan have educated that the two islands are the eyes and ears of Taiwan's defense. That means once PLA takes down Kinmen and Matsu, the people there will become hostages to threaten Taipei. Even the troops there have reduced from the peak of 170 thousand to 10 thousand.
Beijing yet to takedown Kinmen and Matsu is not because it aims to curb the Taiwan government; but because it does not need the hostages as a bargaining chip.
The retreat of the resident on Kinmen and Matsu is no easy thing, not as easy as the KMT government has done for the resident in Dachen Archipelago and Yijiangshan Islands in 1955 with the help from the U.S. 7th Fleet in the 1950s.
Taking down Kinmen and Matsu has nothing to do with the signs of Chinese unification; instead, it forms a bargaining chip, a political pressure on the Taiwan government, and a wedge to split the U.S-Japan alliance.
I feel that Kurt Campbell is releasing confusion messages to China, which will cause negative consequences. What he said in Financial Times and in NHK interview are different.
Washington shies away from open declaration to defend Taiwan FT 20210505
White House official says shift to ‘strategic clarity’ would carry ‘downsides’ in face of China’s belligerence
The top White House Asia official has warned that any declaration that the US would defend Taiwan from a Chinese attack would carry “significant downsides”.
Washington has for decades maintained a policy of “strategic ambiguity” regarding Taiwan, designed to discourage Taipei from declaring independence and China from taking military action to seize the country. Beijing claims democratic Taiwan as part of its sovereign territory.
Any policies have their specific basis of thinking. The policy should change, once the basis has
The policy basis of the U.S. “strategic ambiguity” on the Taiwan issue is that China, which recognizes the strength and strength only, cannot invade Taiwan even she intends to do so.
The policy worked, comparing to the Seventh Fleet, in the days that PLA was weak.
However, persons who advocate continuing the “strategic ambiguity”, like Kurt Campbell expressed, today reflect their weak mindset. Campbell said that the military action against Taiwan is just a political “pressure,” nothing to do with the break-off of the war. He also explained that the short-term and middle-term risk is the accident and the carelessness of the front line soldiers. But how about the long-term risk, and how long is the long-term?
That is the big mistake for U.S. policymakers. Beijing is exercising the salami tactics, or the graze zone warfare, against the core interests of the U.S., way beyond the old school scholars can imagine. The success of the short-term and middle-term salami tactics leads to the ultimate victory in the long run.
Can you imagine that? Weak staff Campbell.