[quote=“ac_dropout”]So are we saying we don’t appreciate PRC using diplomacy to voice their discontent with TI. That we would rather have them lob missiles into the Strait.
TI supporters are truly a nutty bunch.[/quote]
Yeah, real nutty.
Try this nutty approach:
How about actually holding discussions with the democratically elected leader of Taiwan (who has suggested, on multiple occassions, to do so)?
I guess the U.S. is “nutty” for that “encouragement” as well.
And if Koffi gives the same reply – I’m sure the Chinese Ambassador will tell him to mind his own business.
[quote=“cctang”][quote]Press Statement
Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman
Washington, DC
March 2, 2006
Our understanding from the authorities in Taiwan was that the action Taiwan took on February 27 was deliberately designed not to change the status quo, as Chen Shui-bian made clear in his 7-point statement.
Abrogating an assurance would be changing the status quo, and that would be contrary to that understanding.
… Released on March 2, 2006 [/quote]
Wow. That’s as firm as it gets. Screw all of the fig-leaf attempts to describe what changing the status quo means; the US state department is making it concretely clear with the above sentence in bold.
Now what, Chen/Lu?
[/quote]
Did you actually attempt to read the following post?
[quote]QUESTION: Sorry. I have one question about Taiwan. After the U.S. expressed a certain level of relief or a satisfaction about Taiwan’s authority, not abolishing the Unification Council. Some officials in Taiwan stated that there’s no difference between abolish and cease to function. The reality is the Council is terminated and President Chen hardly made any compromise. He still did what he said he would do. So is there any gap between the U.S. understanding and Taiwanese understanding about the wording in the final outcome?
MR. ERELI: No. There’s no – there shouldn’t be any gap or difference of opinion here. President Chen’s assurances were quite clear that the NUC had not been abolished. We’ve seen the reports of comments attributed to other party officials. We’ve been informed by the Taiwanese that these officials have been misquoted and the reports are not accurate. And it is our understanding from the authorities in Taiwan that the action they took on February 27th was deliberately designed not to change the status quo, and that was made clear in a statement by President Chen and that – We have every confidence and assurance that President Chen – the statements made by President Chen are reflective of his policy and his party’s policy.
QUESTION: And have you reached out then to express your displeasure about his cabinet members or officials to have a statement like that?
MR. ERELI: We think that the statements and assurances of the president are – as I said, reflect the policy and position of the government and those in the president’s party.
[/quote]
I also read numerous other press reports, which you apparently have not seen, which confirms the statement was issued AFTER the press conference.
The initial response from Premier Su is that no Taiwanese official has claimed that the council was “abolished”; he claims the confusion is borne of an incorrect Voice of America press report which reported Taiwanese officials has said otherwise. In other words, he’s going to be forced to admit pubilcally that the council + guidelines aren’t “abolished”. Common Taiwanese might not have been really clear on the distinction before, but it sure is obvious now.
Masterfully done, Washington DC.
And far as calling Chinese policy “encouraging” or “pressuring”… whatever. Choose whatever word makes you happy.
hahaha, please forgive me for being blunt and rude but…hahaha like you guys believe this shit matters? Fuck the NUC. Waste of space. That is a a reality. Squabble all you like. Actions matter. Screw your timing of who said what to who and when. Chen…with this action is my mother fraking hero. But this just a little biased opinion.
[quote=“chodofu”]hahaha, please forgive me for being blunt and rude but…hahaha like you guys believe this shit matters? Fuck the NUC. Waste of space. That is a a reality. Squabble all you like. Actions matter. Screw your timing of who said what to who and when. Chen…with this action is my mother fraking hero. But this just a little biased opinion.
[/quote]
Wait… if you can stop fraking your mommy for a second… if actions matter, what was the action here that matters? What exactly has Chen’s little fantastic voyage done for anybody over the past two months?
Its made it clear and obvious to everybody (and anybody) that the NUC does not matter when you have an anti secsseion law, and a whole bunch of roaring mommy frackin misles pointed at you. Well go our way, you go yer’s. An American romantic would call it somthing like a “Don’t Tread on Me” ennui.
It sure as heck hasn’t made that clear to the US State Department. If the NUC doesn’t matter, then why is the United States workin’ so damn hard to make Taipei say (publically and without ambiguity) that it wasn’t abolished?
Now you are making me paranoid. haha, not. I can only speculate and not answer your question. Why would it matter to the Geo and Co.? Tell me what you are thinking, but lets not squabble like the rest of this rabble ok?
I think Chen Shui-bian was trying to play the old game of making “progress” on independence and, well, being a hero to some (just like you said). He picked something that he thought was innocuous, that no one could pretend to defend. The NUC is pretty close to that point. Everything he said was perfectly logical. How can someone defending democracy and the rights of the Taiwanese people insist on a solution for Taiwan?
But everyone’s onto his game. The United States doesn’t give a damn about the theoretical morality of fundamental democracy, not when it comes down to protecting American interests. The US and the EU threw their own citizens into detention camps without representation, are trying to shut down a democratically-elected Hamas government, tried to shut down democratically elected Chavez in Venezuela, is trying to force a political solution on Iraq/Afghanistan.
This isn’t to say the US doesn’t care about democracy, but it does only in the sense that creating a stable + liberal democracy tends to re-enforce American interests. Columbians don’t have the “right” to raise cocaine; Afghanis don’t have the “right” to plant opium; and Taiwanese don’t have the “right” to force a confrontation with Beijing, not when the alternative to confrontation is an indefinite future of peace + prosperity for all.
When Chen Shui-bian starts arguing about Taiwan’s “fundamental rights” while hurting American interests, Washington DC is going to shut him down. That’s exactly what’s happened here. Now, if CSB knows what’s good for him, he better run back to square one.
Like I said in a different thread:
going down his current path serves the interests of 20% of Taiwanese, but doesn’t serve the interests of 80% of Taiwanese + 100% of mainland Chinese + 100% of Europeans/Americans/human beings in general.
going down the path of status quo makes everyone on this planet happy, except the 20% of Taiwanese who support independence (and the sooner the better).
I was going to say frak yor stats, but I’d rather say…frak your stas. haha.
The funny thing about democracy is that every Tom, Dick, and Chen can insist on thier solution. The nice thing is that everybody (and anyone), whether they are less than 1 or all of 20 percent, can choose to disagree. Most will judge it on thier own moral, ethical, metaphysical, real, fanatasised, personal, criteria and carry on… “I have a tee time at six am…” Good Democracy when everybody votes. Decent when everybody has the chance to heve thier voice heard.
With my game face on I can only say. This thing you talk about, the conscious nation-state, has no moral bone in its body. It is a construction of human imagination. Put your moaralistic pretense aside Two friggen paragraphs on Machiavelli for cris’ sake.
Nobody has to run anywhere. My hero has restored the status quo. Back off Bush.
[quote=“zeugmite”]I didn’t get a chance to answer earlier, but I’ll do so now:
Earth to STOP_Ma! The press release came after the press conference! A bit slow today, aren’t we?[/quote]
If that is indeed true, then I apologize for saying that it was the other way around.
If that is the case, I am baffled as to why the spokesman would say one thing in the press-conference and then a completely different thing in the statement.
Proof again that the Bush administration is a bumbling bunch of idiots.
[quote=“cctang”]The United States doesn’t give a damn about the theoretical morality of fundamental democracy, not when it comes down to protecting American interests. The US and the EU threw their own citizens into detention camps without representation, are trying to shut down a democratically-elected Hamas government, tried to shut down democratically elected Chavez in Venezuela, is trying to force a political solution on Iraq/Afghanistan.
This isn’t to say the US doesn’t care about democracy, but it does only in the sense that creating a stable + liberal democracy tends to re-enforce American interests. Columbians don’t have the “right” to raise cocaine; Afghanis don’t have the “right” to plant opium; and Taiwanese don’t have the “right” to force a confrontation with Beijing, not when the alternative to confrontation is an indefinite future of peace + prosperity for all.
When Chen Shui-bian starts arguing about Taiwan’s “fundamental rights” while hurting American interests, Washington DC is going to shut him down. [/quote]
I agree with you, except I don’t think he’s going to have to completely back-track with the NUC decision. There’s still some wiggle room. However, Washington has definitely fucked things up a bit for Chen on the domestic front.
How does the Bush government keep finding ways to make me despise them more?
[quote]
going down his current path serves the interests of 20% of Taiwanese, but doesn’t serve the interests of 80% of Taiwanese + 100% of mainland Chinese + 100% of Europeans/Americans/human beings in general.[/quote]
Let’s get this straight – 80% of Taiwanese want to decide the unification / independence issue themselves. 80% of the Taiwanese do not believe China has sovereignty over Taiwan.
And as for “human beings” who don’t want to be oppressed by an authoritarian regime and have their rights and freedoms taken away – the China “status quo” serves 0% of these people.