Monday, April 18, 2005
I believe the recent protest against Japan is not unique to China, because South Korea also resents Japan’s WWII actions. However, South Korea’s protest was sparked by territorial dispute of island chains (Takeshima in Japanese and Dokdo in Korean) that Japan lays claim to in their new history books.
I don’t believe the protest in China against Japan are government sponsored, but more akin to individuals in authority (i.e. police, CCP, etc.) sympathize with the protestor on this issue, hence varying degree of enforcement from city to city.
In addition the protestors are not challenging the PRC government directly, unlike FLG and Tiananmen protest. The protestors in this case are protesting a foreign government’s political ambition in the UN and interpretation of a sore point in history, akin to Taiwan’s recent anti-secession protest, but as other poster pointed out with less government participation than Taiwan’s recent protest.
I also believe if it was not for the fact Japan is the only other influential country in the region with an apparent pro-Taiwan policy, many Taiwanese would not mind protesting Japan and reminding them the atrocities they committed on Taiwan (i.e. recent egg throwing welcome at CKS airport of a Taiwan political leader visiting a war shrine in Japan). That being the case, it is not prudent for pan-Green or pan-Blue to openly sponsor an anti-Japan protest.
However, I would like to point out in recent development of BB Batteries plight and the conflicted “spin” if Taidu proponents try to use the current events of local discontent in China to their advantage.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2005/04/18/2003250928
If one takes sides on the issue local protestors against big business on environmental pollution, it becomes difficult to side with Taiwan own business BB Batteries, since they will have a negative environmental impact even while complying with PRC regulation on waste water usage.
One the other hand if one supports PRC regulation and BB Batteries, then one inadvertently must have an opinion of resource allocation in the protection from rioters. If Japan and Taiwan both makes request from PRC to protect their property, the government will prioritize these needs. Given the publicity Japan has brought on the issue with their demand for protection and apology from China, they have force China to recognize their needs instead of Japan over those of Taiwan.
In addition the solution to these type of issue is adeptly cited in the article was being something the MAC should responsible for, however, given the ROC administration lack of interest in negotiating these issues which have nothing to do with Taiwan sovereignty, there have been no fruitful dialogue or results.
AC_dropout
I don’t believe the protest in China against Japan are government sponsored, but more akin to individuals in authority (i.e. police, CCP, etc.) sympathize with the protestor on this issue, hence varying degree of enforcement from city to city.
In addition the protestors are not challenging the PRC government directly, unlike FLG and Tiananmen protest. The protestors in this case are protesting a foreign government’s political ambition in the UN and interpretation of a sore point in history, akin to Taiwan’s recent anti-secession protest, but as other poster pointed out with less government participation than Taiwan’s recent protest.
I also believe if it was not for the fact Japan is the only other influential country in the region with an apparent pro-Taiwan policy, many Taiwanese would not mind protesting Japan and reminding them the atrocities they committed on Taiwan (i.e. recent egg throwing welcome at CKS airport of a Taiwan political leader visiting a war shrine in Japan). That being the case, it is not prudent for pan-Green or pan-Blue to openly sponsor an anti-Japan protest.
However, I would like to point out in recent development of BB Batteries plight and the conflicted “spin” if Taidu proponents try to use the current events of local discontent in China to their advantage.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2005/04/18/2003250928
If one takes sides on the issue local protestors against big business on environmental pollution, it becomes difficult to side with Taiwan own business BB Batteries, since they will have a negative environmental impact even while complying with PRC regulation on waste water usage.
One the other hand if one supports PRC regulation and BB Batteries, then one inadvertently must have an opinion of resource allocation in the protection from rioters. If Japan and Taiwan both makes request from PRC to protect their property, the government will prioritize these needs. Given the publicity Japan has brought on the issue with their demand for protection and apology from China, they have force China to recognize their needs instead of Japan over those of Taiwan.
In addition the solution to these type of issue is adeptly cited in the article was being something the MAC should responsible for, however, given the ROC administration lack of interest in negotiating these issues which have nothing to do with Taiwan sovereignty, there have been no fruitful dialogue or results.
AC_dropout
# posted by ac_droppout @ 8:34 AM 
