China the Hegamon again?

Dear Prof. Hall,

Thank you very much for your remarks on my captioned communication.
Your timely response, especially in a tight schedule, is encouraging.

As set out in the above captioned, the first question is whether your
'Reweaving of the WST' can be applied to understanding the Taiwan issue.
  I suspect it can.  Then the basic question is:  How would one analyze
US/Taiwan/China relationship using the World-Systems framework in light
of the Kaiser & Mufson annotated Blue Team's banner waving "moral
authority" to lead a hard-liner's anti "Red demon" campaign?

The 'problematic' issues raised in your 'response 1' definitely
clarified many issues that my  mail sought to define.

The term "nonstate" was used in the context of Taiwan's recent
"state-to-state" debacle,  in an attempt to apply your  reweaved WST to
one problem that should  be most interesting in the Pacific Rim theater
in the next little while /  in the near term.  Hopefully, in the WS
historical perspective, the terms 'nonstate and enclave minorities' have
no baring on or implications to the China/Taiwan question and therefor
the K-Wave will not apply.   In which event, we will pass the 2020's
(not hind sight, but the Chase-Dunn / Podobnik concern of the potential
nuclear holocaust in The Next War) with colors of the Rainbow Culture,
(beauty and natural after a storm, illusive but omnipresent in some
parts of the WS) and not just that of the blue and red banners of the
'Blue Team' and its superimposed  'Red Demons'.

Your  'Nonstate Societies' (in Chase-Dunn & Hall, Rise and Demise, 1997,
Comparing World-Systems, Westview Press) are (all) 'some form of
kin-ordered system, whereas the two types of world-systems ...are
state-based.  (p73).  Taiwan is not now a kinbased society.   Has it
ever been one?   When Chiang Kai-shek passed his rule and fortune to his
son, it resembled one.   Taiwan's Confucian 'mode of accumulation'
resembles the 'kin-based modes of accumulation' (ibid. p.30), in that
sense, is it  not 'some form of kin-ordered system'?    Is there any
systemic logic in the 'nonstate society' analogy to Taiwan's status in
the core / peripheral structure?

Arguably Taiwan has achieved  modernity in political structure.
Certainly no one could argue that Taiwan has not achieve modernity in
her economic structure.   That given, does it mean Taiwan has
transformed from one  mode of accumulation to another without first
transforming into a capitalistic entity?  Using the word 'entity', for
lack of a better alternative, hopefully will demonstrate that partial
diminuendo of  inadequacies in 'software of the mind' is possible even
for those simple unsophisticated would-be students of WST like myself.
After all, the "cognitive understanding of metaphor and metonymy is at
variance with both naive and traditional scholarly views" (Klaus-Uwe
Panther and Gunter Radden, eds., 1999, Metonymy in language and Thought,
Amsterdam; Philadelphia:J.Benjamins. p.1).

Taiwan, in the eye of the 'peripheral' People's Republic of China
(China), is not a State.   In UN terms, Taiwan is a 'nonevent',
'Persona non grata' in any international agenda in the presence of the
China.  Taiwan, considered part of China, a non issue in both the Core
and the Peripheral and most of everything in between, is not a state in
that context.  Taiwan, however, looks very much like a peripheral going
core in an economic sense, if all indicators could be taken as accurate
reflections of  mobility/transformation  in the c/ps.  Could one apply
the metonymy 'nonstate' in the study of Taiwan and her place in the WS?

So, back to the drawing board, and unfortunately more questions:

-What is Taiwan, in WS terminology?
-If sustainability is desired, can we ignore Taiwan's claim to be a
"state" (as defined in Chase-Dunn-Hall  op cit p.44) while it has been
and supposed to be a Province / region of "One China"?  Just to confuse
the issue, a Province could also be a state, of course.  Little if it
helps, in her bargaining effort, Taiwan's claim is that of a State
 with a capital S), as in Nations of United Nations fame!

There could be other questions.  However, with due respect to your
suggestions for segmentation,  other questions shall be put forward at a
later date.

Indeed my questions in these communications may not be precise/concise
for the purpose of a WSN discussion.  The questions could, as you have
said, be answerable in a book or two.  Perhaps it would be an
interesting research project and thesis for students of WS, or would-be
students of WS.

Thank you once again for taking the time and for your generous words of
wisdom.  Your suggested reading of Prof. Wallerstien's Comment No.35 is
also well taken, again with sincere thanks.  In fact I found his
convincing arguments for 'no war, only hard bargaining' comforting.  In
search of a global framework for unity amidst diversity in the 21st Cen.
C.E.,  "The Modern World-System" and his Theoretical Reprise will be
revisited.

Regards,
K.S.Tso