Biden's statements on Taiwan

Politics International Politics
#1

Biden is Obama pick for VP and the presumably a future Obama administration’s foreign policy heavyweight.

Back in 2001 he said
taipeitimes.com/News/front/a … /12/102583

[quote]During that trip, Biden said the Taiwan Relations Act remained the key document governing America’s commitments to Taiwan – remarks widely seen as an attempt to counter a promise by US President George W. Bush that America would do “whatever it took” to defend the country.

Biden in his speech argued for the retention of what he called the "studied ambiguity’’ of the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, whereby the US would remain ambiguous on whether it would help Taiwan repel a Chinese attack.

That act, he said, told Taiwan “you are no longer an independent country. You are no longer an independent nation-state. We’ve agreed that you are going to be part of China and that you will work it out.”[/quote]
Hmm, kind of arrogant to tell Taiwan that “we” (the US and China presumably) have agreed you will be part of China. It’s also a rather odd interpretation of the TRA. If you read the link, Carter would have vetoed the TRA if he hadn’t been advised that his veto would be overridden. In fact he expected the PRC to absorb the Taiwan when he switched recognition. The TRA was a way to keep US relations with Taiwan going and allow the US to sell Taiwan arms. From a US perspective, Taiwan is still a state.

Michael Turton has this scary quote
michaelturton.blogspot.com/2008/ … aiwan.html

So much for strategic ambiguity, he’s flat out telling the world that America won’t fight a war over Taiwan.

#2

That issue is one of the main reasons I actually look at, and consider, the GOP candidates each time an election comes around. (For at least a few seconds)

#3

US won’t fight a war over Georgia, why would it fight a war over Taiwan?
You are aware US is already fighting 2 wars in the Middle East.

Plus the War on Crime, War on Drugs, War on Evolution…

How many wars can the US actually afford?

Not the mention the USA borrows money from China to fight these wars.

I’m sorry but the economic reality of these wars make the Republican candidates look even less attractive this time around.

#4

[quote=“ac_dropout”]US won’t fight a war over Georgia, why would it fight a war over Taiwan?
You are aware US is already fighting 2 wars in the Middle East.

Plus the War on Crime, War on Drugs, War on Evolution…

How many wars can the US actually afford?

Not the mention the USA borrows money from China to fight these wars.

I’m sorry but the economic reality of these wars make the Republican candidates look even less attractive this time around.[/quote]
Hey, ac, will you formally endorse Obama/Biden as the official One China ticket for this election?

#5

[quote=“ac_dropout”]US won’t fight a war over Georgia, why would it fight a war over Taiwan?
You are aware US is already fighting 2 wars in the Middle East.[/quote]

Yes… which points out how illogical your statement is. You could just have easily have said, “The US is willing to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, why wouldn’t it fight a war over Taiwan?”

#6

Appears to be a fairly standard reiteration of the US “one China policy”, opposing moves to Taiwan independence and warning that it will not defend Taiwan in the event of a unilateral declaration of independence, while maintaining a high level of ambiguity. Remember these statements were made during Chen Shuibian’s period in office, and likely reflect a desire to warn him off independence policies.

taipeitimes.com/News/front/a … /12/102583

Bush actually made similar statements:

taipeitimes.com/News/front/a … 2003258664

Admittedly Biden’s language is more direct, but the message is the same. And since China isn’t going to invade, and Taiwan isn’t going to declare independence, it’s hard to see what difference it makes.

#7

[quote=“Tempo Gain”][quote=“ac_dropout”]US won’t fight a war over Georgia, why would it fight a war over Taiwan?
You are aware US is already fighting 2 wars in the Middle East.[/quote]

Yes… which points out how illogical your statement is. You could just have easily have said, “The US is willing to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, why wouldn’t it fight a war over Taiwan?”[/quote]

Unfortunately, no oil in Taiwan. More of a headache than what it’s worth. Since “peace” is more importantant than “freedom”, and to keep peace in the US, China (PRC) must be apeased, Taiwan will be the sacrificial goat. The bottom line is that a deal was struck before, and it will be enforced, just as the deal with England 100 years later was enforced for Hong Kong. Overseas Chinese have been repeating this mantra for decades.

Talking about the UK, I bet the US attitude in case of PRC attack on Taiwan will be the Falklands all over again: technical assitance, as in satellite surveillance -probably not even necesary, as PRC alreday has its own- will be provided to the China. Then, eveyone can rejoice about peace in Asia… momentarily.

#8

[quote=“ac_dropout”]US won’t fight a war over Georgia, why would it fight a war over Taiwan?
You are aware US is already fighting 2 wars in the Middle East.[/quote]
The US only started the war in Georgia. We don’t need to fight it.

#9

[quote=“Icon”]

Unfortunately, no oil in Taiwan. More of a headache than what it’s worth. Since “peace” is more importantant than “freedom”, and to keep peace in the US, China (PRC) must be apeased, Taiwan will be the sacrificial goat. The bottom line is that a deal was struck before, and it will be enforced, just as the deal with England 100 years later was enforced for Hong Kong. Overseas Chinese have been repeating this mantra for decades.
.[/quote]

Oh it’s a headache but it’s OUR headache. Simply take an aspirin and sleep it off? You’re talking about the United States now.

#10

Actually the US can avoid having do anything like fight a war provided it makes it clear to China that it will fight a war if China attacks Taiwan. Which is something Biden seems hazy on.

His comment about Taiwan not being worth fighting over actually makes a Chinese attack much more likely. Bush’s “we will do whatever it takes to defend Taiwan” makes it less likely. The fact that the Democrats don’t seem to get this very simple idea makes me extremely concerned about them being in power.

#11

KingZog is spot on, IMO.

#12

Why?

This is not the case, the US does not recognise the ROC or Taiwan as a state.

This is not what Biden is saying, he says that the US reserves the right to use force to intervene should China change the status-quo, but warned Taiwan it would not intervene in the event of a unilateral deceleration of independence. Similar to Bush’s position-see post above.

No it doesn’t, because China will not attack Taiwan (since it has very little to gain in doing so and everything to lose). In any case, Bush only said he would do “whatever it takes” to defend Taiwan provided that Taiwan does not declare independence. Biden says the US will maintain the “right to intervene”. Sure there is a difference of emphasis, but the question is entirely hypothetical.

#13

There’s a crucial detail you left out, and that’s that provided Taiwan itself did not provoke the attack. This is important unless the US wants its defense assurance to Taiwan be taken as a green light to declare TI.

There’s two sides to this equation here. And that’s that while the US has an interest in aiding Taiwan from unprovoked attacks by China, it won’t do so if Taiwan is the one who instigated the attack in the first place. Democrats and republicans both understand this, it’s just that each are more inclined to only say one part publicly.

#14

This is not the case, the US does not recognise the ROC or Taiwan as a state.

[/quote]
I should have said from a US domestic legal perspective.

Read this link on the TRA.

wufi.org.tw/eng/feldman.htm

[quote]As it emerged from Congress, the TRA placed Taiwan in a unique position. A government no longer recognized would continue to be treated as the government of a friendly state for all purposes of American law. It would have standing in American courts; its assets in the United States were confirmed in its sole possession; for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act it would be treated as a separate country. Most importantly, its peaceful, uncoerced future was stated explicitly as a matter of grave concern for the United States, and the Congress gave itself the equally explicit role in monitoring the way successive administrations would behave toward Taiwan.

To say President Carter was not pleased would be putting it mildly. He considered vetoing the bill when it came to his desk, but he was advised that the votes in the House (339-50) and the Senate (85-4) indicated that such a veto probably would be overridden. In the end he signed it.

Carter, and all the presidents who have followed him, have had to live with the tension between the promises, explicit and implicit, made to the PRC in the three communiques on the one hand, and the plain language of the TRA on the other. Sometimes there is an obvious contradiction - for example between the section of the TRA dealing with arms sales to Taiwan and the August 17, 1982 communique which President Reagan was persuaded to sign. Sometimes there is a contradiction between communique language a the actions of an administration - for example when President Bush authorized the sale of F-16s to Taiwan despite the August 17 communique.

This tension continues to the present day. It is an artifact of what I believe was the basic mistake made by President Carter in accepting the PRC’s three conditions instead of insisting that both realism and American interests required the U.S. to continue to maintain an official relationship with the ROC. Had he done so, we would have escaped the tortuous exercise that comes from having to operate a foreign policy which denies that Taiwan is a nation and its government is a government, while both American law and manifest reality say it is both.[/quote]
Carter conceded that the US wouldn’t have diplomatic relations with Taiwan. So much for “Human Rights Diplomacy” I guess.

#15

There’s a crucial detail you left out, and that’s that provided Taiwan itself did not provoke the attack. This is important unless the US wants its defense assurance to Taiwan be taken as a green light to declare TI. [/quote]
Actually I agree that is the case and I think the US is perfectly entitled to add that proviso. But his comments about “Taiwan already being part of China” and “who wants their kids to die for Taiwan” go much further than that.

#16

[quote=“KingZog”]
I should have said from a US domestic legal perspective. [/quote]

Right, Taiwan could be treated as a state for legal purposes in domestic law…but of course these relations are unofficial, Taiwan is not recognised as a state by the US.

Right but Carter only completed the process started by Nixon.

Although the Shanghai communique was careful not to state which side represents China, Carter had no choice but to concede the US would have no diplomatic relations with the ROC, as dual-recognition was not acceptable to either the PRC or the ROC, and normalising relations with Beijing was seen as essential for the US.

Anyway the TRA created a level of ambiguity that still defines the US role in cross-straits relations. I don’t see where Biden is departing from that position.

#17

Acknowledging Taiwan as part of China is a long-standing US position-see Shanghai communique.
As for asking “who wants their kids to die for Taiwan”-it’s a fair question. The US is not obligated to defend Taiwan. The TRA is ambiguous on this.

#18

[quote=“Mawvellous”]The US is not obligated to defend Taiwan. The TRA is ambiguous on this.

Except that a matter of “grave concern” generally refers to a reason to go to war in diplomatic-speak.

#19

No it doesn’t say anything about going to war, and is often used when there is no intention of going to war.

“The African Union expressed its grave concern at the situation.”
AU on Zimbabwe

“I’ve expressed my grave concern about the disproportionate response of Russia and that we strongly condemn the bombing outside of South Ossetia”
Bush on South Ossetia

“The most recent events in Zimbabwe are of grave concern…”
Jack Straw on Zimbabwe

“…matters of grave concern to the United States”
US diplomat on human rights abuses in Chechnya

#20

No it doesn’t say anything about going to war, and is often used when there is no intention of going to war.

“The African Union expressed its grave concern at the situation.”
AU on Zimbabwe

“I’ve expressed my grave concern about the disproportionate response of Russia and that we strongly condemn the bombing outside of South Ossetia”
Bush on South Ossetia

“The most recent events in Zimbabwe are of grave concern…”
Jack Straw on Zimbabwe

“…matters of grave concern to the United States”
US diplomat on human rights abuses in Chechnya[/quote]

Despite its frequent misuse, the term “[color=#4000FF]grave[/color]”, in diplomatic speak means impending war.