Slashdot Mirror
High-Tech Firms Worry About Taiwan-China Tensions
Andy Tai writes "This San Jose Mercury News story shows high tech companies in the Silicon Valley worry about a possible war between mainland China and Taiwan. Both play important roles in the computer industry and the U.S. depends on both to finance the federal budget deficits. Many businessmen hope that economic considerations will prevent both sides from marching down a self-destructive path."
Maybe these company CEOs should signal the Taiwan government that it's not good for business if you intentionally provoke a neighbour with nuclear weapons and the world's largest standing military.
The owls are not what they seem
Looks like the old "The is only one China" Jedi mind trick is becoming less effective.
Many businessmen hope that economic considerations will prevent both sides from marching down a self destructive path.
Meanwhile, hippies hope that love of peace will prevent both sides from marching down a self destructive path, and Slashdotters hope that considering the impact of a war on American technology consumers will prevent the war.
The shareholder is always right.
Maybe now execs will start to see the true value of keeping their high tech centers located in stable political environments.
Walmart gets a very large portion of their stuff from China. It would probably cause prices to rise on darn near everything in the US.
That would not necessarily be a bad thing. Probably help out domestic manufacturing.
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
Wait a minute. Are there any non-Asian memory manufacturers?
Come on, this is WHY it is cheap and effective to use offshore suppliers.
The reason that many countries are expensive is because they are safe and stable.
The laws, workforce, international situation are all good, you are likely dealing with an expensive country.
If you go to some country that has "political risk" the costs will be lower to account for this, everyone who does business with such a country must account for this risk.
If you want a safe stable place to do business keep it in a stable country, Don't put it in a semi independant nation/state mess on the other side of the world.
Resides in
The White House
Cheers,
Kilgore Trout
Amazing what killing/jailing those who disagree you does. Also, it doesn't hurt if you keep most of your population at damn near the global poverty level.
And I'm not sure if you were being ironic with your "money is bad, think about the children" line, but note that in this case the point is that the lost revenue would actually be a deterrent for war. In other words, economic factors are actually helping to make the war less likely.
Many businessmen hope that economic considerations will prevent both sides from marching down a self destructive path.
Both economically and militarily, there won't be mutual self-destruction between mainland China and Taiwan. Instead, there will be one huge mammoth of a country squashing a football-field-sized other country.
And there won't be economic or military sanctions on China (the threat of which is what prevented it from harming Taiwan for so long) because now the US, the only country able to inflict any kind of sanctions on China, has vested interests in both countries.
The only thing China risks is reproachful looks at the UN for a while, then after everybody there is done looking really shocked, Taiwan will be history. Proof is, if the rest of the world had any kind of power against China's actions, Tibet would have been freed a long time ago.
In short: Taiwan's days are numbered.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
It's nice to think that what with war looming, the prospect of thousands of people being killed, all business men can think about is money. It sickens me.
Oh please. Are you saying that whenever there's a mere potential of anything bad happening anywhere in the world we should all just stop and contemplate our navels until the problem goes away?
No, life goes on. People go about their business, as normally as possible, whatever the situation because that's what we do. A lot of Liberal whining about how evil businessmen are doesn't change the fact that the businessmen are utterly blameless in this affair... but far be it from a Liberal to criticize their fellow Communists, the near-psychotic Chinese government, that has resorted in the past to starving 50M of its own citizens to death just to maintain its own grip on power.
But as I said before, a war between the two countries isn't likely. China knows the consequences of going into Taiwan; it would lead to American intervention and probably put an end to Chinese economic development and lucrative trade China does with the United States.
- A
... between the two of them in the past, what on earth could people be worried about?
Isn't avoiding unnecessary bloodshed a good enough reason anymore?
Was it ever?
Looking back on history, I think the failure to avoid World War I, perhaps the most pointless conflict that has ever been waged, pretty well damns humankind.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
"Avoiding unnecessary bloodshed" hasn't worked as a reason for the last 4000 years or so, why would it work any better today?
If money keeps these morons from fighting, then I say hurrah for money.
Walmart gets a very large portion of their stuff from China. It would probably cause prices to rise on darn near everything in the US. That would not necessarily be a bad thing. Probably help out domestic manufacturing.
The impact of war on this country would be none too pleasant. Goods shortages mean price rises means inflation means rising interest rates. The war would also disrupt Chinese purchases of American debt -- further driving up interest rates.
With higher interest rates would come debt problems for many people (who's ready for 24% credit card interest rates and 8-12% mortgage rates?). Rising interest rates would also kill the affordability of housing. Housing prices would drop and a bunch of people would find that they own more on their house than the house is worth. I doubt that domestic manufacturers would be able to pick up the slack because they woudl not be able to afford to borrow the money needed to invest in equipment and people.
Its a global economy and this war would not be pretty for anyone (and I won't even go into the possibility of direct U.S. intervention in any attack on Taiwan).
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Neither of the countries have "vast oil reserves", so GWB isn't directly interested in stopping a lop-sided war... however, ... yeah, flamebait, i know.
China did make a token gesture. They will do for Taiwan what they did for Hong Kong.
There will be no referendum. There will be no independence. There will be only status quo, although, the ruling partyin Taiwan WILL get a nice dacha in northern province.
Saddam had historical claims on Kuwait too ... you can always construe agression as internal conflict if you try hard enough.
Morally we all know Taiwan is an independent state, wether our governments recognise it as such or not.
It is just appeasement all over again.
Geeks should recall that neither is it wise to intentionally provoke a neighbour with 40 billion dollars in assets and a 99% desktop market share. It may be instructive to also remember those things called "ideals", that some people consider to be worth fighting for.
The hippie is a convenient straw man. The word has so many associations with shiftlessness and stupidity that even counterculture folks like Ken Kesey use it as a term of a abuse. But it's not fair to saddle every idealistic philosophy with the label. Especially the pacifists, who have been around for centuries, and even played a role in the founding and settlement of the U.S.
> to cross 70 miles of the strait of formosa would be an undertaking that would make normandy and okinawa be minor ops.
> they don't have the 1) airforce to provide cover,
> 2) the navy to carry them over, 3) the ability to
> protect the invasion from being observed from
> satelites, which would give us and taiwan
> advanced notice, 4) the ability to hold and
> maintain a beachhead once there
China has an excellent military, including an air force and the navy, which it can use quite effectively. Remember the time when Taiwan was having its first elections, back in 1996? China performed quite a show of force back then, holding exercises in which an occupying force took and held a beachhead and a few islands, giving a good proof of concept for a Taiwan invasion. The comparison with Normandy is misleading; Taiwan does not have anything comparable to the forces that Germans had on that beach. The coast of Taiwan is not all that well protected, and I doubt that the Chinese army would worry much about it, unless the U.S. decided to intervene. As for your comment about satellites; first, advance warning of a few hours is not going to help much against such a powerful adversary; second, if Saddam Hussein had no difficulty hiding tanks in the open desert from both the satellites and ground observation, surely, a technologically advanced nation like China could figure something out.
> second, china built the three gorges dam.
When important national interests are at stake, the Chinese government would be willing to overlook a few casualties.
> we could take it out in about 10 minutes.
Perhaps. But would we? The U.S. needs China way more than China needs the U.S.; China is the producer, the U.S. is the consumer. If the producer loses one market, it could find another. If the consumer loses the goods, he loses the goods. There is simply no way domestic industry could replace all the cheap imports from China. Slave labor is always cheaper than technology.
Of course they'd fail, since the U.S. couldn't allow them to succeed. But the fighting would devestate Korea and place a nasty strain on U.S. military resources, which are already stretched. Let's see, that would leave two of the most productive economies in Asia (Taiwan and Korea) in utter ruins, with millions of unemployed. And the U.S., which is already spending gazillions it doesn't have, would be spending gazillions more. So economic hard times here, for a bunch of reasons.
And that's the best case scenario. It assumes the DPRK doesn't have more than a couple of nukes...
It's not a troll. It's humor you don't agree with. That's ok and you're entitled to your opinion.
:)
:)
Obviously not everyone who disagrees with Pres. Bush is getting tossed into Gitmo, and it would be both an extension of the point and a fundamental fallacy to say so.
Which is why it's funny to say so
At the same time, when you lock people up for an indeterminate amount of time, deny them the right to seek legal counsel, and hold all hearings pertaining to their "crime" in secret.... you risk looking like you're running a police state.
Is Gitmo full of political prisoners of the Bush Administration? Of course not. Are most of the people there terrorists and other dangerous folk? Probably. Are we all safer and more secure with those people behind bars (or barbed wire as the case may be)? Definitely.
But are there also some people there who were wrongly imprisoned, who didn't do anything, and who are being denied their Constitutionally Protected rights to trial by jury, legal advice, and habeas corpus? Almost certainly.
In my mind, that single fact (or if you prefer, possibility) counters every possible argument, every possible benefit, and every considerable merit for keeping prisoners in the Gitmo facility and trying their cases in secret. These people have a right to defend themselves in a court of law in full view of the public. If we take that away how can we really say we're fighting to defend freedom anymore? How can we really say we're championing anything other than oppression and totalitarian rule?
Let these cases stand on their own merit. If the government has proof than let it be seen. Too many American lives have been sacrificed on the alter of freedom, too many of our nation's sons have died to hoist the banner of liberty, too many fathers have been cut down fighting a war for justice to throw away the values we hold so dear at this moment of crisis.
I could have posted all that, but I was going for the +5 funny. You people have no since of humor
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
Bad news for you, but there are a couple things mitigating against China winning a war against Taiwan:
1. Taiwan has nukes. China has all of their cities on a densely populated coast. Do the math.
2. The US typically keeps an aircraft carrier in the region when things get hot. The idea of the Chinese being able to invade Taiwan in the first place is extremely debatable. They simply do not have the amphibious assets to do so. And, even if they did, American air support would blow them to bits. Don't kid yourself about what a single carrier group can do, especially to a non-Western military.
3. The Chinese government would fall immediately when the rest of the world embargoed them. They're simply NOT self-sufficient, and with nowhere to import/export, their economy would collapse.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
There won't be a war between China and Taiwan. Why?
1. US Popular Support For Taiwan. I don't care what the pessimists, Europeans, and US bashers out there say, the American people love the ideals of democracy, of freedom, etc. Being an American forces you to accept those ideals. Now, since the WMD is gone, Bush has justified the Iraq war as "helping the oppressed Iraqis". What about the Taiwanese? Aren't they going to be oppressed if China takes over? Damn straight they will. And Bush will be fscked, because even if he doesn't want war, his very actions doom him to this one action. There's a famous Latin phrase for this, but I forgot it. Anyone want to help me out?
2. Saber Rattling. China has been rattling it's saber at Taiwan for what? Years, decades even. And it's gotten old. I'll believe the Chinese are going to invade Taiwan when I see shitloads of Chinese troops boarding a cruiser...
3. Economic. China is a fscking Communist, if anyone's forgotten. It represses people. If China doesn't want to go into a recession, it won't invade. Guess what? If China invades, say goodbye to Chinese exports to Western nations. Goodbye to China's booming economy. And goodbye to general Chinese population happiness. China's people are tolerating the government because it's providing a growing standard of living (Although, speaking as a political scientist, it's unclear whether the Communist government can stay in power as capitalism, long a hallmark of Western democracies, booms). Anyway, when China's economy drops through the floor, what happens? Discontentment. Perhaps riots. Worst case scenario, China will need troops just to quell disturbances, etc.
4. Western Help. Come on. As listed in #1, we're going to go help the Taiwanese. Subs, missiles, ships, etc. I'd like to see the nonexistent Chinese Navy, full of Chinese Army troops, get to Taiwan when confronted by the US Seventh Fleet. Not to mention high altitude bomber attacks.
first, china simply can't go to war with taiwan. (oh sure, they can fire some missles, but then see down the list.) see, to cross 70 miles of the strait of formosa (taiwan strait) would be an undertaking that would make normandy and okinawa be minor ops. they don't have the 1) airforce to provide cover, 2) the navy to carry them over, 3) the ability to protect the invasion from being observed from satelites, which would give us and taiwan advanced notice, 4) the ability to hold and maintain a beachhead once there. it doesn't matter if you have one million, or 10 million, troops in an invasion. if you can't support them, they're targets.
Why invade when you can lob missiles?
second, china built the three gorges dam. they have so much capital (even in communist china!!) tied up in it, it generates such a large portionof power. and, it is impssible to defend from air ro missile attack. we could take it out in about 10 minutes. and they're fscking toast.
I don't think the either the U.N. or the American public would take too kindly to taking out targets by the destruction which will cause the deaths of thousands of civilians.
third, china is so dependent upon the US trade for an in flux of capital and hard currency. anything more than sabre rattling, and we shut that off, they take a shit. they are fscked.
Sorry, it's the other way around. The American consumer is addicted to cheap shit from China. Over 80% of China's population still live in rural villages and surrounding areas, they won't feel a thing in the case of an economic embargo. We, on the other hand, will be hurting if the aforementioned scenario occurs. Remember, never underestimate the idiotcy of senile men in power.
"The world under heaven, after a long period of division, tends to unite; after a long period of union, tends to divide. This has been so since antiquity. When the rule of the Zhou Dynasty weakened, seven contending kingdoms sprang up, warring one with another until the kingdom of Qin prevailed and possessed the empire. But when Qin's destiny had been fulfilled, arose two opposing kingdoms, Chu and Han, to fight for the mastery. And Han was the victor."
"Before him bowed the kings of Shu and Wu,
Content to forfeit kingly power for life.
All down the ages rings the note of change,
For fate so rules it; none escapes its sway.
The three kingdoms have vanished as a dream,
The useless misery is ours to grieve."
These are the opening and ending lines of Romance of the Three Kingdoms, one of the most popular and well-known books in China. In the Chinese mentality the reunification of Taiwan with China is something that is going to happen eventually, if not right now. Why? They look at history. China has always split into 2 or more countries after the end of a dynasty and one of those countries has always gone and defeated the others to reunify China. Since it has always happened in the past it will happen in the future (Chinese believe strongly in cycles). If people wonder where China's obsession with unification comes from...Historical characters such as those in Three Kingdoms who reunite China (or try really really hard eg. Ngok Fei) are always admired and become national heroes and are even elevated to gods.
I can see China invading Taiwan though not right now. If civil unrest continues in China and the economy goes downhill, in order to maintain power the government might raise the spectre of nationalism. Nationalism is already replacing Communism as the idealism the government is using to keep people loyal and faithful. And once nationalism is raised in rhetoric it may be a war that the Chinese government is forced into by its own proclaimations. It may back itself into a corner and decide invading and the consequences would be better than losing face. And unification has always been a fascination of the Chinese as books like Romance of the Three Kingdoms show. Think - a restless China with economic problems, a new young energetic Chinese premier comes into power on the back of a strong nationalist campaign. He thinks - could I become another Guan Yu from Three Kingdoms (who is now worshipped as a god)? The temptation to recreate the Oath of the Peach Tree Garden may be too hard to resist. Chinese rulers have done a lot more stupid illogical frankly self-destructive things in the past.
In these circumstances, the needs of technology users in America are going to be the least of their considerations. Godhood or computer users in the US? Godhood or computer users in the US?
" the US certainly loved the self destructive path in afghanistan and iraq"
Yes, polls show the the Taliban and Saddam Hussein are wanted back in power in Afghaistan and Iraq, respectively. Oh wait that's Bin Laden that wants the Taliban back in Afghanistan, and FRANCe, Germany, and Russia that want Hussein back in Iraq, so they can continue their lucrative contracts with Iraq.
I like Chinese / They only come up to your knees.
China will take Taiwan when they know they can get away with it. The US only delaying the inevitable. Americans think in terms of months, the Europeans in terms of years, the Japanese in terms of decades, but the Chinese in terms of centuries. China will of course be sure not to spoil the economic plum that is Taiwan unless it no longer matters. They'll probably do to it what they did to Tibet. I feel guilty when I say this, but a bloody war between China and Taiwan wouldn't bother me especially if it helped to reduce the mainlands population.
It is a good introduction. Unfortunately, it forgets to mention any background before Chiang Kai-shek withdrew in 1949. Many westerners tend to think mainland China and Taiwan are two completely unrelated regions and should be considered as two countries. I hope the following summary can help the reader to decide themselves.
First, we need to make clear about the population profile in modern day Taiwan. Only 1 % are aboriginal people (more similar to polynesian living around the Pacific islands), about 20% come to descended from parents came to Taiwan in around 1949, with the rest came from mainland in 1600-1900. But, anyway, most of them have a clear Chinese origin.
Second, there were foreign occupations during 1624-1661 by the Dutch and 1895-1945 by the Japanese (a pretext to the WW2). According to Cairo Conference of 1943 the allied powers agreed to have Taiwan be handed over to the Republic of China after the surrender of the Japanese. The 20th century wisdom is no one should gain more land from an invasion. Japan is a counter example. Okinawa was Ryukyu Kingdom with different language and culture before 1879. Many Chinese think that it is crazy for a separated Japan-leaning country just right outside China. The end of the WW2 should mean a restoration of the old border.
Third, many people in Taiwan blame KMT (Chiang Kai-shek's party) for everything after the 1949 withdrew. However, there is an often overlooked fact. Where is the national reserve of China end up to (the currency is partially back up with gold that time)? Also, during the last days of KMT rule in mainland, they have forced the mainlanders to pay 30years of taxes in advance. Basically, confisticating all the available capital before retreating... It is therefore hard to claim there is no link between 2 sides...
War, what war? Over here most Taiwanese are too busy shopping and complaining about their own cowboy trading on local stock markets to actually notice if china invaded. Most people accept that sooner or later something will happen, but as natural cowards and born capitalist, there is very little chance of Taiwan actually defending itself. Unless big bad US of Bush drops a few big ones on shanghai within an hour of a fleet of converted fishing boats heading out to Taiwan (which, given the mental stability of the man, is actually possible (scary)), the Taiwanese will happily surrender and begin a "one country three systems" negotiation that is probably already more advanced than anyone lets on.
Actually folks, China would be mad to do anything other than shout obscenities across the strait until after the election. Most Taiwanese, rightly or wrongly, blame the DPP for the present economic decline, and the independence rhetoric is basically a DPP election strategy. The KMT, china's old foe, looks set to sweep the DPP aside and then we can go back to a more traditional military junta/democracy that has existed here for many decades (and seems to be taking root elsewhere, if you know what I mean). China would be happy with that and it could tone down its rhetoric a notch for a few years while supplying more of its children to the Taiwanese businesses that proliferate along its coastline so that you can have your cheap toys across the placid lake.
Maybe outsourcing all those electronic engineering and manufacturing jobs offshore wasn't such a good idea after all...
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
I wonder if U.S. firms have thought about other instabilities such as the tension between India and Pakistan? If much of our capability to develop software is outsourced to India and all hell breaks loose, what happens to our tech industry then?
There will be no draft. It would immediately end public support for the war (which is why some Democrats are disingenuously advocating it), and everyone from Rumsfeld on down who's been asked has said they neither need nor want one. If we do end up needing more troops there's a very simple way to get them: pay higher salaries.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
The United States Supreme Court doesn't think so. The case United States v. Wong-Wing is explicit and clear in the idea that non-citizens are still protected by the US Constitution.
The Geneva Convention(s), apply only to POWs and other captives taken during a war. Incidently, the United States has failed to declare war, both on Iraq and on Afghanistan. Conseuently, it is anyone's guess as to weather or not Geneva applies. Further, the United States has used this technicality to justify the conditions at Gitmo (i.e. since Geneve doesn't apply we don't have to meet Geneva standards for prisioner treatment).
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
The US would have to step to the line in the hopes that China would bow out. But once the US steps to the line, they can't bow out. If we did, what would our defense pacts with the Japanese, Koreas, Europeans, Israel etc mean?
As much as I dislike the guy, Charles de Gaulle said it best: "Countries have no friends; they only have interests!" I find that to be almost a truism. I personally think USA WILL stop defending Taiwan in 30 or so years. Once China ramps up its nukes to US levels, and once China becomes an economic superpower (some say it already is but I dont' think so), USA will have little interest in defending Taiwan. There is NO WAY USA will sacrifice itself by using nukes to defend Taiwan--that's just rhetoric.
Japan is looking to seperate from USA. They are trying to dismantle their pacifist constitution and develop an offensive military. There is even speculation that Japan may pursue nuclear weapons within a few decades. In any case, USA was never really protecting Japan. Japan was not an interest to USSR and China never posed a threat to Japan over the last 30 years. Even now, Japan will likely defeat China in a war (alone) whereas Taiwan won't. What USA did to Japan was to contain it. It prevented Japan from developing an offensive--and hence formidable--military force by claiming that it would protect it.
As far as Europe is concerned, the fall of USSR pretty much means that Europe doesn't care anymore. If anything, they are trying to build up their independent military force, which USA is unhappy about.
As far as Isreal is concerned, I'm not sure how long USA will protect it. Just like all other countries, the relationship is driven by interest. If USA feels that Isreal is not worth it, it will abandon it.
What I am saying (that USA dumping it allies and vice versa) might be shocking to the centrists and moderates but that is what has happened throughout the ages. For example, if someone said USA was attempting to cut ties with Saudi Arabia 20 years ago, you would be laughed at. Yet that is precisely what is happening. The interests (oil, control of middle east, etc) are still there but the downside (getting involved with middle east wars, terrorists targetting USA, etc) is starting to make the relationship unattractive.
Similarly, consider the US relationship with France and Britain. USA and France were VERY close during its independence days (and for about 100 years after that). Britain, in contrast, was an enemy of USA for its first 100 years or so. Now, France has less in common with USA than Britain. If anything, USA and Britain are close (although not as close as USA and France were in the 1700's).
That's why my philsophy is to always build up your country by yourself. If other countries help, fine. But just know that they are doing it for their own interests. The day will come when they will pack up and leave (when it doesn't serve their interests anymore).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places