China Should Allow Secession, but so Should Taiwan!

Can Taiwan Prevent a US-China War Over Taiwan?

The world’s eyes are now focused on Russia and Ukraine. And with good reason. These two nations are now involved in a hot war with each other, and there are fears that it might spread even further.

Another possible war, that between the US and China over Taiwan, should also be kept on the forefront of consideration. If it occurs, it will involve the two most powerful nations on the third rock from the sun. China makes no secret of its desired relationship with Taiwan: the former considers the latter as its 16th province, even though it is presently separate from its mother country and has been since 1949.

The US is equally adamant that Taiwan is not a province of any other country, such as China. It opposes any unilateral change in its present status. In order to prevent any aggressive takeover of the former by the latter, American warships continually ply the waters of the South China Sea, which separates these two political entities.

How can a hot war over this issue be prevented? Is there any possible compromise that can preclude such an altercation, a potential danger to the entire human race?

There is.

One or more of these three political entities must officially sign on to the doctrine that all political associations must take place on a voluntary basis. No group of people should be compelled to associate, politically or in any other manner, with others against their will. Neither the US nor China is likely to be the first to take this plunge. This leaves the matter up to Taiwan. It, presumably, has the most to lose in any war to prevent a Chinese takeover, and, thus, the most incentive to do what it can to ward off such an eventuality.

What can Taiwan do?

Are there any folk now living in Taiwan who would wish to politically amalgamate with China? To become part of its 16th province? Fortunately for this compromise scheme, there are.

For example, Lin Te-wang, the leader of the Taiwan People’s Communist Party, admires Chinese President Xi Jinping, and maintains that his version of Chinese socialism would maximize economic development in Taiwan. How many Taiwanese support those or similar views? According to a survey recently held by the non-partisan Taiwanese Public Opinion Foundation, this figure is about 12%.

How, then, to proceed? The Taiwanese government should hold elections of a very different sort than the usual. It should seek a relatively small area, perhaps, even a single town or a village in which a majority of the voters are to be found representative of this 12%. Unless voters who favor joining China are randomly distributed, geographically, a most unlikely occurrence (people with similar views tend to coalesce), such a territory will be found. Then, the Taiwanese government should welcome China into this one small area, which should be declared the 16th province of that mother country (provided that a peace treaty, or some such guarantee against the coerced spread of this entity, could be arranged).

There is precedent for this sort of thing. Not all political entities are geographically connected. For example, Pakistan and Bangladesh were for many years the same country, although geographically separate. If the Palestinians had their way, their country would consist of parts of Jerusalem along with the Gaza Strip. Were Quebec to separate from Canada, what remained of the latter country would be to a great degree disconnected by a large space.

This would be difficult for Taiwan to accomplish. No political entity ever relished giving up a part of itself. Just ask the Spanish re the Basque territory.

If Taiwan took the lead in this regard it would also be tough for Mr. Xi. He would lose face if he attacked what he would then have to regard as a neighboring island nation. For in this way, Taiwan would have already acceded to his wish, well, at least to an aspect of it. A part of Taiwan would be China’s 16th province. Which part? Only that section of the island which gave majority consent to this arrangement.

This would be a bitter pill for the US as well. In order to be logically consistent with this new philosophy, it would have to announce that if Texas or California, or Florida or New York, wished to secede from the US, it could do so without any physical opposition from Washington D.C. Let us say nothing about the war against secession of 1861.

Yes, there would be bitter pills all around. But if this scheme could prevent a war between China and the US over Taiwan, they would be as nothing, compared to the cost of the latter.

My goal, here, is to embarrass all involved politicians out of conducting a war on this matter. Maybe if they lose face for engaging in possibly nuclear fisticuffs, this will reduce the probability of it occurring in the first place.

From The Savvy Street, here.

Great Quote by a Journalist… in 1883

There is no such a thing in America as an independent press, unless it is out in country towns. You are all slaves. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to express an honest opinion. If you expressed it, you would know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid $150 for keeping honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for doing similar things. If I should allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, I would be like Othello before twenty-four hours: my occupation would be gone. The man who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the street hunting for another job. The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to villify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or for what is about the same — his salary. You know this, and I know it; and what foolery to be toasting an “Independent Press”! We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping-jacks. They pull the string and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.

John Swinton

יהודים המתנגדים להר הבית דומים לגונב כלי שרת רח”ל‎

כך הרב אליהו ובר רמז לאחרונה, שהיא עברה כ”כ חמורה שרק קנאים פוגעין בו, כמו הבועל ארמית (הקשבתי מקופיא).
 
ראיתי דברים לגאון רב אשר וייס שליט”א בענין זה כאן:
והנה בסנהדרין שם אמרו “הגונב את הקסוה והמקלל בקוסם והבועל ארמית קנאין פוגעין בו” ולגבי הבועל ארמית אמרו שם הלכות שונות: א. אין הקנאין רשאין לפגוע בו אלא בשעת מעשה ולא אח”כ. ב. אם בא לשאול אין מורין לו כן, דאין קנאת הקנאי חיוב אלא רשות אף שבודאי יש בה מצוה. ג. עוד אמרו שם “אילו נהפך זמרי והרגו לפנחס פטור עליו, מ”ט רודף הוא והתורה אמרה הבא להרגך השכם להרגו, עי”ש.
 
וכתב שם המאירי דלגבי שתי ההלכות הראשונות פשוט שהן נוהגות גם בגונב את הקסוה דאף בו אין הקנאי רשאי לפגוע בגנב אלא בשעת מעשה, ואם בא לשאול אין מורין לו כן, אבל לגבי מה שאמרו דפנחס הוי כרודף לגבי זמרי ואילו הרגו זמרי פטור עליו אין דין הגונב כלי שרת כדין הבועל ארמית ושוב כתב “ואין הדבר ברור בידי”.
וצ”ב במה שאני הבועל ארמית מהגונב את הקסוה, הלא כתב בחידושי הר”ן בסנהדרין שם דהטעם דפנחס רודף היה הוא משום שאינו חייב להרוג את זמרי (משא”כ שליח בי”ד או אף המציל את הנרדף בנפש הרודפו דודאי לא חשיבי רודפין כלל ואילו הרגן החייב מיתה או הרודף ודאי חשיבי כרוצחים כיון דהני חייבין להרוג ולא רק רשאין לעשות כן עי”ש), וא”כ מה טעם יש לחלק בין הבועל ארמית לגונב את הקסוה לאחר שכתב המאירי דבשניהם אם בא לשאול אין מורין כן.
ולכאורה י”ל לפי מה שדנתי במנחת אשר לפסחים סי’ ג’ איך הותר לזמרי להרוג את פנחס והלא אף רודף גמור אסור להרוג אם יכול להצילו באחד מאבריו, וק”ו בפנחס שאינו כרודף גמור אלא לגבי זמרי בלבד, וא”כ למה לא יתחייב זמרי לפרוש מן החטא כדי להציל את פנחס ולמה פטור הוא אם הרגו הלא היה יכול להצילו ע”י פרישה מן העבירה, ואפשר לפי מה שאמרו בכתובות נ”א דתחלתה באונס וסופה ברצון אינה נאסרת דיצרה אלבשה, הרי שלאחר תחילת ביאה שוב נחשב כאנוס ואין בידו לפרוש, ולכן פטור זמרי אם הרגו לפנחס ולא אמרינן היה לו לפרוש דיצרו אלבשו, וכלשון הרמב”ם (פרק כ”ד מאיסו”ב הי”ט) “יצר האדם וטבעו כופה אותו לרצות” אך הא תינח בבועל ארמית אבל בגונב כלי שרת דיכול לפרוש מלגנוב שוב צריך לעשות כן כדי לא להרוג את הקנאי דלא גרע מיכול להציל באחד מאבריו.
אך לפי מה שנראה עיקר דזמרי רשאי להרוג את פנחס משום שפנחס בא להרגו ואין זמרי חייב לסמוך על כך שאם יפרוש מחטאו יחוס עליו הרודף וימנע מהריגתו, קשה לראות טעם לחלק בין הבועל ארמית לגונב כלי שרת, ועדיין צ”ע בזה.