Trump tells Chinese president US will honor 'one China' policy

That’s ironic as you’re the only one twisting anything here that I can see. The law says one thing and you’re twisting it to say something else which it doesn’t.

Here is the Republican Party Platform 2016, which they interpret the Taiwan Relations Act as helping Taiwan defend itself in the event of less than peaceful resolution. I think the rhetoric is intentionally clear enough to China, that they would think twice about invasion. It has to be.

“Our relations will continue to be based upon the provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act, and we affirm the Six Assurances given to Taiwan in 1982 by President Reagan. We oppose any unilateral steps by either side to alter the status quo in the Taiwan Straits on the principle that all issues regarding the island’s future must be resolved peacefully, through dialogue, and be agreeable to the people of Taiwan. If China were to violate those principles, the United States, in accord with the Taiwan Relations Act, will help Taiwan defend itself… As a loyal friend of America, Taiwan has merited our strong support, including free trade agreement status, the timely sale of defensive arms including technology to build diesel submarines…”

One thing is for sure, if China invades Taiwan, how would we look to the world not doing anything, sitting pretty there with our precious TRA. It might not bother Democrats, but for Republicans, this is the kind of stuff that makes the difference between a good president and a terrible one.

Even though the bolded statement is direct and moves away from the concept of “strategic ambiguity” long maintained by administrations from either party, you are ignoring the key statement which still appears, “We oppose any unilateral steps by either side to alter the status quo in the Taiwan Straits”.

I’m not sure if we’re talking past each other here or not. I agree that if China takes unilateral action to change the status quo, we will definitely respond. But if Taiwan takes unilateral action to change the status quo by declaring independence, then all bets are off–the US is definitely not committing itself to defend Taiwan under those circumstances–that is exactly what I mean by that phrase.

Your kindergarten-level Democrat/Republican taunting has nothing to do with that situation. In the former situation, either could be relied upon–the policy is a long-standing one and a failure to uphold our commitment would indeed be damaging. But in the latter case, we’ve made it clear for a long time that we don’t consider ourselves to be bound by the commitment.

If he was, he must have been able to drink him under the stable.

Stranger interpretations than that have been proposed for many laws.

The US is a country where the courts can order you to bake a cake or else.

Have been proposed? Your point is eluding me here, and I don’t see what it has to do with the question at hand.

Yes, the Republican Platform says they oppose it, as anyone says it because they don’t want trouble, because they know China invading will mean American involvement by virtue of the TRA. But the TRA itself doesn’t make this condition on Taiwan, Presidents and party platforms can kick and scream and fulminate all they want as they have enough troubles already, but at the end of the day, such warnings doesn’t vitiate at all the efficacy of the TRA nor the responsibility to act.

Even so, my prior point is that a resurgent patriotism coming from Taiwan would obviate these warnings. These warnings seem appropriate when most Taiwanese seem not to even care or desire to fight for it. But with younger generations not being affected by this love for the mainland, and democratic notions and a lifetime of liberty taking root, I don’t think this status quo thing can be expected to last much longer; it’s a house of cards China is relying on.

The status quo across the strait can last indefinitely as long as China believes Taiwan is not worth the price to defend. How long can a PLA personel on Taiwan survive against air strike? Where is he going to hide?

Whatever relations US have with Taiwan don’t really change the status quo across the strait, because China and the Chinese will still believe Taiwan is a part of China. Even if US conducts official exchanges with Taiwan, calls Taiwan’s president “Taiwan’s president,” sells arms and conducts joint military exercise, all these matter very little to the Chinese mind, because they believe Taiwan is a part of China. They do.

What’s going to change the status quo across the strait is whether China thinks it has the capability to take and HOLD Taiwan.

For your reference,
“We are also changing fundamentally our operational plans and approaches to deter aggression, fulfill our statutory obligations to Taiwan,…” US Secretary of Defence Ash Carter, Nov 7 2015 ( Source: Remarks on “Strategic and Operational Innovation at a Time of Transition and Turbulence” at Reagan Defense Forum > U.S. Department of Defense > Transcript)

As long as US maintain the [ Capacity x Resolve x Signalling] to strike any PLA on Taiwan, that in itself will deter the PLA from breaking the status quo across the strait, even if a US president visits Taiwan to set up a diplomatic mission.

The TRA clause stipulates US to maintain the Capacity. The TRA itself, because it is a law, is a form of Signalling. To have the US Secretary of Defence enunciating it clearly regularly and publicly, proves a kind of Resolve.

That doesn’t contradict what I’ve said. No one (I think) is denying that there are statutory obligations and that they involve potentially defending Taiwan. There seems to be a disagreement about the binding nature of those obligations though.

I think that’s well stated. The writers of the law were careful however to leave the wording of our commitment ambiguous, I believe (I’m not sure if there’s ever been an explicit statement made why) to avoid creating conflict with China and to avoid tying ourselves to Taiwan in any and all circumstances (at the time, they probably had aggressive actions by Taiwan in mind rather than TI, or it may have been done on general principle.) Our frequent statements to the effect that we oppose unilateral attempts on either side of the strait to alter the status quo are a form of signalling to Taiwan as well.

Supposing they think they can and find out too late they were wrong?

Taiwan architecture, hideous as it is, is well suited to defensive warfare. But the resistance will need real guns. Preferably sniper rifles, backed up by handguns. And a whole lot of guts.

When the dust clears, gun control in Taiwan would be dead and buried. Whether democracy survives will depend just when and how they come to their senses. Either the people will rule, or the local gangsters, or the invading gangsters.

well you’re talking about tactical level stuff. Even if China manages to land an armour vehicle on say Hsinchu at say 12:30 pm, how exactly do you think will stop this armour vehicle from being destroyed by some sort of strike at 2:30pm? Why would Japan agree to suspend all usual transportation to Singapore? Do you think China has enough credit to come up with the kind of cash that will make the Japanese accomodate that kind of incovenince ? There’s just too many physical constraints around placed around the whole idea of annexing Taiwan. If I were the Chinese, I would never agree to pay the regular price since I saw it went on sale at 60% OFF last Christmas. I’m just going to wait until it goes on sale again. I’m not stupid.

let’s put it this way. The South China Sea never declared independence from China. But it’s still a source of conflict for US and China. And it’s growing, and exacerbating by day. US ambiguity did not work out so well, did it?

I’d love to see the US stating that US does not support South China Sea independence, however there’s nobody living there. So image there the scenario where nobody is living in Taiwan, and therefore there is nobody on Taiwan to declare anything. Do you think Taiwan will cease to become a source of conflict?

[quote=“sofun, post:54, topic:158195, full:true”]
The status quo across the strait can last indefinitely as long as China believes Taiwan is not worth the price to defend. How long can a PLA personel on Taiwan survive against air strike? Where is he going to hide?

Whatever relations US have with Taiwan don’t really change the status quo across the strait, because China and the Chinese will still believe Taiwan is a part of China. Even if US conducts official exchanges with Taiwan, calls Taiwan’s president “Taiwan’s president,” sells arms and conducts joint military exercise, all these matter very little to the Chinese mind, because they believe Taiwan is a part of China. They do.

What’s going to change the status quo across the strait is whether China thinks it has the capability to take and HOLD Taiwan.[/quote]
This is part what I’m talking about, this passivity on the part of Taiwanese, we’re too little; they’re too big. That will change when patriotism overcomes that. As American minutemen, rifleman in tattered clothing, the professional British Army, power, resources were superior to us in all kinds of aspects, but we didn’t concentrate on that. We wanted our liberty, and we were going to get it or die. Thomas Paines said “These are the times that try men’s souls” but present-day Taiwanese don’t want their souls tried, it’s mafan, it’s inconvenient, which is why China tries your souls.

Here are quotes from our Revolution that if Taiwanese should take to heart, they would win, just as we had against all odds.

Thomas Paine: “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.”

John Paul Jones: “I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm’s way.”

Patrick Henry: “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their county; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny like hell is not easily conquered yet we have this consolation with us, the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value.”

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.”

Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Beside, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of Nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.”

“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”

The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, Sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable; and let it come! I repeat, Sir, let it come!”

Samuel Adams: “A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.”

George Washington: “Our cruel and unrelenting Enemy leaves us no choice but a brave resistance, or the most abject submission; this is all we can expect - We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die: Our own Country’s Honor, all call upon us for a vigorous and manly exertion, and if we now shamefully fail, we shall become infamous to the whole world. Let us therefore rely upon the goodness of the Cause, and the aid of the supreme Being, in whose hands Victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble Actions - The Eyes of all our Countrymen are now upon us, and we shall have their blessings, and praises, if happily we are the instruments of saving them from the Tyranny meditated against them. Let us therefore animate and encourage each other, and shew the whole world, that a Freeman contending for Liberty on his own ground is superior to any slavish mercenary on earth.”

Give me Liberty or Give me Death

I regret I have but only one life to give for my country

I think China tries US’s and Japan’s soul. From US and Japan’s point of view, there’s certain horror to be experienced by watching your neighbour getting slaughtered, even if you barely know your neighbour.

There is much psychological upper-hand to be gained by killing a chicken to scare a monkey. There is mental hurdle for China to physically attack US or Japan. So if you were China, what options are left for you to coerce Japan and US?

No doubt about that. We won the Korean war all the way to the Yalu River. Then China came at us and we lost the “China War” because Democrat Truman was too scared to bomb their factories on Chinese turf like Republican General McArthur told him to do (and got fired).

The TRA represents the law, the legislative branch, which “commits” us to defending Taiwan in the event of Chinese aggression. The protest against changing the status quo by Taiwan usually comes from the Executive Branch, Presidents, Ambassadors, and such, who have to execute the law. But they can’t go around the laws, unless it is Obama, who can find a way out like a 15 year-old teenager finding clever excuses to get out of work. You gotta admit they’re talented at it.