US-Taiwan Multi-Billion Dollar Arms Deal Creates Stir in Far

[Blayne]

Look- first, when you're asked for evidence, instead of saying "Buy the book," you find passages that support what you say and quote them. Preferably, these passages contain evidence the author used for her conclusions, and not just those conclusions. Otherwise, why should anyone care about this book?

Largely because that doing a thesis' level of research and posting it online is alot of work for an informal discussion simply stating the book as my source by a credible and respectable analyst should have been enough.

Second, by not presenting any text, you ask us to believe that you have a perfectly clear understanding of the author's conclusions and are relaying them to us free of distortion or misinterpretation. There is no guarantee that this is so, whether deliberately or not, which is why you should post relevant citations.

Agreed, its a fun enough read that I'll consider this but I had priorities that took me elsewhere. So I had to make do with paraphrasing my understanding from memory.

As it happens, there are excerpts of this book on Google Books here, from which you may quote. However, you should read closely before you do, so as not to make an ass of yourself.

"Ordinary people take a very hard line on Taiwan," a well-known academic commentator explained later, "not because of the need to save face, but because if Taiwan goes independent, it will trigger other secessionist movements in Tibet, Xinjiang, and maybe Inner Mongolia, and national unity will be threatened. [] "But," he said, "Taiwan is a question of regime survival--no regime could survive the loss of Taiwan."

1. This is hearsay, not an authoritative statement or a conclusion backed by evidence.
2. The academic refers to other separatist movements seizing on Taiwanese independence as an excuse for action, not mass protests, as the threat to the government.

Why is being hearsay or not relevent in an academic paper/book? This isn't a court of law, it is an authoritive statement taken from said 'well known commentator' which is probably sourced in the footnotes.

I think its this one that chapter is shoddily sourced: Shi Guhong 1999, "Difficulties and Options: Thoughts on the Taiwan matter".

China's decision-makers feel trapped between Taiwan and their own public in an impossible situation. As one colonel put it, "People criticize the government for not doing enough about Taiwan. If Chen Shui-bian does something and the U.S. doesn't stop him, then the army will think it should act to teach him a lesson. Then the U.S. will respond and the Chinese people will support a harsh government reaction, showing muscle. But the U.S. is the world's superpower, it has face to keep, so the U.S. will have to respond, It will be impossible to control the escalation."

Again, Shirk states a generalization and provides hearsay from an anonymous source to "support" it.

When gauging the opinions of an authoritarian government from its senior military officers what do you expect? Do you have reason to believe that this colonel wasn't met with or didn't give his correct view? Also this 'generalization' is repeated and substantiated upon several other times in the book.

Earlier in the book the view of the military is sourced here: "The Supreme Leader and the Military", Ji, 289.

Also substantiated here: "PRC Security relations with the United States, why things are going so well" China Leadership Monitor, no. 8.

Public Opinion on Taiwan being described as outraged by Taiwanese provocations given by the Social Survey Institute of China.

And again here: "Posing problems without catching up: China's Rise and challenges to US security".

Recognizing the huge costs of military action--at minimum, it would set back the economy by three, five, or ten years, according to various Chinese internal studies--the CCP leaders seek to avert it, or at least postpone it until the military is ready.

Here is indication of something you glossed over in your simplistic analysis. The CCP derives a lot of its legitimacy from its demonstrated ability to grow the economy and increase Chinese prosperity; protests a couple of years ago were not against the government for not being tough about Taiwan, but by poor rural Chinese who felt that the country's economic growth came at their expense (IIRC). Significant disruptions to economic growth are a threat to the CCP. Any action that derails that growth is anathema to the government - why do you think China stonewalls on international climate change treaties?

Since the discussion is about Taiwan it was unnessasary to mention the other pillars of CPC legitimacy.

As for stonewalling climate change treaties I believe the integrity behind them are debatable either they target the developed world unfairly or they target the developing world unfairly, in either case China is putting alot of effort into greener technologies and energy efficiency and I trust that since its so obviously in their national best interest to do it then they will do so on their terms.

It is universally believed in China that the CCP would fall if it allowed Taiwan to become independent without putting up a fight. A Beijing student put it this way, "If we can't get Taiwan back, the Chinese government may lose its power to control the people. It will show that the government is too weak to protect our territory--then people will want to change the government, maybe even demand democracy."

HUGE claim there; no evidence given except more hearsay - from a student. But wait...

Substantiated later in the book sourced above.

People rarely specify how they think a Taiwan crisis would bring down the Communist Party--it takes more than a lot of angry, unhappy people to overturn a government. And, in fact, once you get outside the power elite in Beijing, you may find a 'silent majority' who care more about the economic progress than Taiwan. (A small group of local government officials told me that, as one of them said, "The people don't really care much about Taiwan. It's the government that cares.")

So, even in this morass of unsubstantiated generalizations and hearsay opinions, the author suggests that the country, on the whole, isn't going to pressure the government to crush and independent Taiwan, and is in fact pretty chill about the whole thing. Of course she doesn't bother to investigate this at all - no more than any of her other claims - but she basically confesses that her "authentic" hearsay might be totally irrelevant after all.

Aha but this is where your not getting it aside from you still incorrect perception of hearsay is that what actually may happen isn't nearly as important as peoples perception to it and what they believe, in Beijing the government thinks they would have to respond because that is the feedback they are getting from their media from the major cities, with a better and more open press Susan actually goes on to say the Government can get a better idea of peoples opinions and not just the extremes of those opinions but for now there is a limitation to what they know, and what they know so far and percieve is that losing face over Taiwan could be fatal.

So the point is that while the Selectorate believes it is nessasary for regime survival they will probably react.

So, Blayne, it's your turn. Pick out the passages, either online or from the actual text, that lend credence to your claims.

Also, for anyone who wans a condensed read, there is a summary-review here.

When I get time to do it, but I'm more interested in how you would conduct the research and how would you present it in a nation where open discussion of policy usually isn't publicly encouraged 'in the open' as it were and what sort of standards you would require before you would accept it as valid evidence.

[Simplicius]

Largely because that doing a thesis' level of research and posting it online is alot of work for an informal discussion simply stating the book as my source by a credible and respectable analyst should have been enough.

What the hell? I don't know how you could possibly see skimming some Google Books text as 'thesis level research.' I spent more time manually typing out the quotes than 'researching'; if I'd been able to copy and paste it would have taken maybe fifteen minutes all told.

It shouldn't have been enough, and it wasn't, because saying "I have a book by this author that says what I'm saying" is just an appeal to authority.

Agreed, its a fun enough read that I'll consider this but I had priorities that took me elsewhere. So I had to make do with paraphrasing my understanding from memory.

All well and good for establishing that the book exists and that you have read through it, but not really germaine to the meat of the discussion.

It's really not hard to find citations even in a whole text. Go to the chapter that looks to be most relevant, skim until you see a key word or sentence, read it closely for context and to make sure it says what you think it says, and you're done. At worst you end up reading a whole chapter, which is only ten or twenty minutes of your time. Doing it electronically even gives you Ctrl+F to help.

Why is being hearsay or not relevent in an academic paper/book? This isn't a court of law, it is an authoritive statement taken from said 'well known commentator' which is probably sourced in the footnotes.

There was no footnote - it was a "man in the street" style quote.

At any rate, hearsay is pretty much always important because it changes how you treat the evidence. Shirk gave us a quote from one guy on the matter, from a population of over 1.3 billion. She gave us his opinion rather than any sort of confirmable fact presented by him. She called him a "well-known academic commentator," but 'well-known' and 'academic' do not automatically mean 'reliable' 'accurate' and 'honest,' and without his identity or credentials we have no way of determining whether he is any of those things.

Would you really take the opinion of a single anonymous commentator at face value alone, especially when the subject is as complex as China's domestic politics? That's why hearsay matters.

Shi Guhong 1999, "Difficulties and Options: Thoughts on the Taiwan matter".

If you've got other sources offering a cross-section of Chinese domestic opinion greater than one, by all means copy & paste.

When gauging the opinions of an authoritarian government from its senior military officers what do you expect? Do you have reason to believe that this colonel wasn't met with or didn't give his correct view? Also this 'generalization' is repeated and substantiated upon several other times in the book.

I don't see her surveying China's senior military officers, I see her making a statement and then following it up with a quote from a single person who happens to say the same thing. I don't see her making any effort in the whole of Chapter 7 to show that multiple members of the PLA high command feel that way, or that the sentiment is common through China's government proper (since China does not have a military government) - which, if she wants to credibly establish as true, she ought to have done.

Earlier in the book the view of the military is sourced here: "The Supreme Leader and the Military", Ji, 289.

Earlier in the book where, please?

Also substantiated here: "PRC Security relations with the United States, why things are going so well" China Leadership Monitor, no. 8.

Public Opinion on Taiwan being described as outraged by Taiwanese provocations given by the Social Survey Institute of China.

And again here: "Posing problems without catching up: China's Rise and challenges to US security".

Again, this is where you give some quotes. I'm not at uni any more and I don't have open access to scholarly publications, so you're going to have to do your own lifting here.

Since the discussion is about Taiwan it was unnessasary to mention the other pillars of CPC legitimacy.

Oh yes, because a government never weighs all of the challenges it faces at the same time and in direct comparison, and never prioritizes among them or devises a compromise strategy to address as many challenges as possible in the best way possible. The CPC will consider every hurdle to its continuing legitimacy in a vacuum, and will address each one with the best individual solution even if it makes all the other challenges more severe.

Puh-leez.

As for stonewalling climate change treaties I believe the integrity behind them are debatable either they target the developed world unfairly or they target the developing world unfairly, in either case China is putting alot of effort into greener technologies and energy efficiency and I trust that since its so obviously in their national best interest to do it then they will do so on their terms.

Oh, and you were so close! See if you can follow the reasoning here:

"...they target the developing world unfairly." Yes. How so? Well, the developing world is still growing its respective economies, and sudden forced ICCP compliance would reduce or even reverse that growth (via more expensive energy and developing/adopting new, expensive technologies). China sure doesn't want to see its economic growth reduced or reversed, not when it is the key to the CPC's continues success in power. So China objects to climate change treaties.

"On their own terms," meaning "when it can be done without screwing up economic growth." For the obvious reason already mentioned.

Substantiated later in the book sourced above.

Give me a quote. "Universally believed" is a big deal when you're talking about national populations, especially ones China's size. It takes a lot more than a handful of "man in the street" quotes to back that up.

Aha but this is where your not getting it aside from you still incorrect perception of hearsay is that what actually may happen isn't nearly as important as peoples perception to it and what they believe, in Beijing the government thinks they would have to respond because that is the feedback they are getting from their media from the major cities, with a better and more open press Susan actually goes on to say the Government can get a better idea of peoples opinions and not just the extremes of those opinions but for now there is a limitation to what they know, and what they know so far and percieve is that losing face over Taiwan could be fatal.

So the point is that while the Selectorate believes it is nessasary for regime survival they will probably react.

Only the author hasn't done a heck of a lot to establish that "the people's" perception and "the government's" perception and what "the media" tell the government are what she says all these things are.

I understand what Shirk wrote just fine; I am highly literate. I am doubting that what she wrote can be accepted as accurate on its face. If you want to convince me otherwise, you provide whatever quotes you deem necessary.

When I get time to do it, but I'm more interested in how you would conduct the research and how would you present it in a nation where open discussion of policy usually isn't publicly encouraged 'in the open' as it were and what sort of standards you would require before you would accept it as valid evidence.

Ah, the old saw - "If you think it's so bad, write a better one yourself."

I couldn't, but fortunately I don't have to. Unlike yourself I am aware that experts are fallible, and what you don't grasp about my posts on the matter is that I am showing why Shirk's writing should not be accepted at full face value. Doesn't mean she's a liar, doesn't mean she couldn't be 100 percent accurate in every way - but if you just accept Shirk's work without a huge dose of salt and a lot of other sources alongside you're a sucker, because her written argument is just a surface skim. Even if it's absolutely correct, it's too shallow to give a critical reader enough confidence in that fact.

[Blayne]

Before I have a chance to look around for the passages in question I'm not asking you to write a better one, only for your standards on what a better one could be so I can skip over passages you'ld dismiss and find better ones.

[K. A. Pital]

Before I have a chance to look around for the passages in question I'm not asking you to write a better one, only for your standards on what a better one could be so I can skip over passages you'ld dismiss and find better ones.

Trying to play clever-ass? You should look at the reasons why statement A or B can be false or true; not accept any of them at face value. Simplicus did exactly this. Now you are trying to say you're cool, because you accept any statement from a single book you read and came to fully believe at face value - without actually providing reasons. What do you think it tells us about your logical skills?