I hope a Tsai presidency would bolster national defense

Politics Taiwan Politics
41

[quote=“hansioux”][quote=“Taiwanguy”]

I can’t help but laugh at how much you can divorce yourself from reality in all of this. The U.S. will never (at least in the foreseeable future) recognize a “Taiwanese Military” force, a newly designed Taiwanese flag, or anything like that on any sort of official level. Why? Because China would throw a ridiculous temper tantrum.

Quoting a speech by a State Dept. official proves absolutely nothing. I absolutely guarantee that if you pressed Mr. Rivkin about what he is referring to when he uses the term “Taiwan,” he would be obliged to answer that he is referring to Taiwan the province of China. Why? Because that is the U.S. gov’t line. They cannot and will not recognize a state of Taiwan. End of story.[/quote]

Really? Then explain why there’s a US law requiring to help a “Chinese province” maintain a sufficient level of self-defense capabilities?

Such statement isn’t even factual, let alone in touch with realities. According to the Taiwan Relations Act, the US’s position on Taiwan is “governing authorities on Taiwan,” which certainly isn’t “Taiwan, province of China.”

The US’s official position is that they understands China’s position on Taiwan, but maintains that Taiwan’s sovereignty is undetermined.[/quote]

Fine…But the fact is that the U.S. will never support the idea of rebranding the ROC military, flag, etc. under the “Taiwan” brand. Do you actually think that’s the case? The U.S. was grinding its teeth when Chen was trying to change the post office name and such…

I’m not so convinced that the current U.S. gov’t considers Taiwan’s sovereignty undetermined.

These are quotes from the U.S. State Department’s current page on Taiwan ( state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm ):
The 1979 U.S.-P.R.C. Joint Communique switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing. In the Joint Communique, the United States recognized the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China, acknowledging the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China.

[i]The United States does not support Taiwan independence.

The United States insists on the peaceful resolution of cross-Strait differences, opposes unilateral changes to the status quo[/i] (That certainly is what Sofun is proposing here) by either side…

42

[quote=“Taiwanguy”]
Fine…But the fact is that the U.S. will never support the idea of rebranding the ROC military, flag, etc. under the “Taiwan” brand. Do you actually think that’s the case? The U.S. was grinding its teeth when Chen was trying to change the post office name and such…[/quote]

The only reason the US would concern itself with such development is that the US’ ultimate goal is to keep Taiwan out of China’s control while delay real confrontation as long as possible.

43

[quote=“hansioux”][quote=“Taiwanguy”]
Fine…But the fact is that the U.S. will never support the idea of rebranding the ROC military, flag, etc. under the “Taiwan” brand. Do you actually think that’s the case? The U.S. was grinding its teeth when Chen was trying to change the post office name and such…[/quote]

The only reason the US would concern itself with such development is that the US’ ultimate goal is to keep Taiwan out of China’s control while delay real confrontation as long as possible.[/quote]

And because it has always been the US’s stance that neither side should take any unilateral moves in either direction.

A new flag, a new name for the military, etc. would be an outright declaration of independence. The US would abandon Taiwan right then and there.

44

Nothing in there prohibits the people of Taiwan’s right to self-determination. Even if Taiwan declares independence, Taiwan’s strategic value to the US doesn’t change, and makes little sense for the US to not intervene, unless it’s already too weak to wish to maintain its interests in EA, SEA and the Pacific.

45

The US government has no problem with calling Taiwan “Taiwan” and Taiwanese Military “Taiwanese military”, for example “Taiwan Air Force”, “Taiwan Navy”, etc. I wouldn’t be surprised if such terms are already used in the Terms and Conditions of past arm sales. It’s a matter of reviewing the text and putting in better mechanisms and follow through.

In any case, the proposed military reform requires no ROC Constitutional change. It is a matter of the executive branch following through in order to observe the contract.

Like I already said, internal changes can be brought about by making commitment to another, much like self improvement. Start with small changes and result will show before you know it.

46

[quote=“hansioux”]
Nothing in there prohibits the people of Taiwan’s right to self-determination. Even if Taiwan declares independence, Taiwan’s strategic value to the US doesn’t change, and makes little sense for the US to not intervene, unless it’s already too weak to wish to maintain its interests in EA, SEA and the Pacific.[/quote]

Don’t forget the TRA you quoted and the act the USA keep repeating is their guide for Taiwan US relations, does not recognize Kinmen and Matsu as a part of Taiwan. From the TRA you just quoted.

[quote]Definition of Taiwan
The act does not recognize the terminology of ‘Republic of China’ after 1 January 1979, but uses the terminology of “governing authorities on Taiwan”. Geographically speaking and following the similar content in the earlier defense treaty from 1955, it defines the term “Taiwan” to include, as the context may require, the islands of Taiwan (the main Island) and Penghu.

Of the other islands or archipelagos under the control of Taiwan’s governing authorities, Jinmen, the Matsus, the Wuqiu Islands, the Pratas and Taiping Island are left outside the definition of Taiwan. Also any area claimed by the authorities, but not under their control, is without mention. [/quote]

Assuming the progression is thus, rising tensions due to what China perceive as a move towards independence from the Taiwan side, a grab of some of these islands by the Chinese, which actually falls in line with its rising expansion in the south China Sea and assuming China limited itself to just these islands. Would you expect the USA to send in the troops over a set of islands it doesn’t even recognize form a part of Taiwan?

47

[quote=“Taiwanguy”]
These are quotes from the U.S. State Department’s current page on Taiwan ( state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm ):
The 1979 U.S.-P.R.C. Joint Communique switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing. In the Joint Communique, the United States recognized the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China, acknowledging the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China.[/quote]
sigh… Acknowledging your position doesn’t mean accepting your claim though.

48

“Acknowledging your position doesn’t mean accepting your claim though.”

True. But acknowledging gives the claim a certain degree of legitimacy. Did the US acknowledge Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi claim on Kuwait? Did the US acknowledge Valdimir Putin’s Russian claims on Crimea? No, in those instance, the US flately rejected those claims in the first place.

49

Clearly, Ms. Tsai doesn’t interpret the lack of prohibition for self-determination as a green light for self-determination and unconditional backing. Why would she say she supports the status quo and will operate under the framework of the ROC Constitution as president?

Either A. She is a secret ROC loyalist at heart or B. she is lying to the American officials and the Taiwanese public or C. she knows that if she pushes for independence, the Americans will actively undermine her election bid.

50

[quote=“Mick”][quote=“hansioux”]
Nothing in there prohibits the people of Taiwan’s right to self-determination. Even if Taiwan declares independence, Taiwan’s strategic value to the US doesn’t change, and makes little sense for the US to not intervene, unless it’s already too weak to wish to maintain its interests in EA, SEA and the Pacific.[/quote]

Don’t forget the TRA you quoted and the act the USA keep repeating is their guide for Taiwan US relations, does not recognize Kinmen (Jinmen) and Mazu as a part of Taiwan. From the TRA you just quoted.

[quote]Definition of Taiwan
The act does not recognize the terminology of ‘Republic of China’ after 1 January 1979, but uses the terminology of “governing authorities on Taiwan”. Geographically speaking and following the similar content in the earlier defense treaty from 1955, it defines the term “Taiwan” to include, as the context may require, the islands of Taiwan (the main Island) and Penghu.

Of the other islands or archipelagos under the control of Taiwan’s governing authorities, Jinmen, the Matsus, the Wuqiu Islands, the Pratas and Taiping Island are left outside the definition of Taiwan. Also any area claimed by the authorities, but not under their control, is without mention. [/quote]

Assuming the progression is thus, rising tensions due to what China perceive as a move towards independence from the Taiwan side, a grab of some of these islands by the Chinese, which actually falls in line with its rising expansion in the south China Sea and assuming China limited itself to just these islands. Would you expect the USA to send in the troops over a set of islands it doesn’t even recognize form a part of Taiwan?[/quote]

I’m aware of that and that’s why in many other threads I’ve stated that if Taiwan do declare independence, Kinmen and Matsu should get their own referendum to decide their own fate.

51

I always thought that the reason the U.S. refers to Taiwan as “Taiwan” is because the U.S. does not recognize the ROC as a sovereign government. And China will pitch an even larger fit if the U.S. began calling Taiwan the ROC even in an unofficial context. I might be wrong but I can’t remember the last time I saw a U.S. communication that referred to Taiwan as the ROC. “Taiwan” historically was a more neutral name (it must have been and probably still is galling to the KMT Hardliners) and leaves some room for ambiguity as to Taiwan’s ultimate status.

One the issue of increasing the likelihood of U.S. assistance if Taiwan were to rebrand the military and other parts of its government as “Taiwan”, I’m inclined to agree with Taiwanguy and others that such actions are rather more likely to provoke US (and Chinese) ire rather than aid. Conceptually, I don’t think the U.S. is against TI per se, it is against provoking a war with China. If China agreed not to invade, I don’t think the U.S. would care if Taiwan declared independence.

But why should Taiwan stop at half-measures? If Taiwan is going to rebrand itself in the face of Chinese threats, it should consider “code-sharing” the name of an actual U.S treaty ally. Instead of the ROC Army and Navy, they can use the name of the Polish Army and Navy. Certainly, U.S. policy makers will remember last century’s calamity when a foreign invader attacked and steamrolled the Polish Army. Or maybe Israel? Or something more nonthreatening, like Iceland. Sure, the Poles might not like it, but what are they gonna do . . . Break off diplomatic relations? Recall their ambassador?

52

[quote=“hansioux”]
I’m aware of that and that’s why in many other threads I’ve stated that if Taiwan do declare independence, Kinmen (Jinmen) and Mazu should get their own referendum to decide their own fate.[/quote]

Thats almost the correct answer I would expect from the independence camp, would I be going too far if I said you think of those islands as a sacrificial pawn?

53

[quote=“Taiwanguy”]…I’m not so convinced that the current U.S. gov’t considers Taiwan’s sovereignty undetermined.

These are quotes from the U.S. State Department’s current page on Taiwan ( state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm ):
The 1979 U.S.-P.R.C. Joint Communique switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing. In the Joint Communique, the United States recognized the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China, acknowledging the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China.[/quote]

Sigh. The US recognizes China’s position but has its own One China policy. This has been explained to you a hundred times.

Here is a clear overview of the US position on Taiwan prepared for Congress.

fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41952.pdf

54

This thread is getting sidetracked.

55

Does not compute

56

I hope by now we can all agree that the premise is that US wants to see Taiwan bolster its defence, and Taiwan also wants to work with US to bolster its defence. We also know that US sees and calls Taiwan as “T-a-i-w-a-n” for the record, and this doesn’t create inconsistency in US position regarding the status of Taiwan.

I’d like to go back to how to reform the military into Taiwan Air Force, Taiwan Navy, Taiwan Army.

First of all let me make it clear that no ROC constitutional changes are necessary. the ROC constitution is not concerned with the naming convention and the culture of Taiwan’s Military.

57

Does not compute[/quote]

Could it be you didn’t read the previous comment and miss the context? I hope a Tsai presidency would bolster national defense - #46 by Mick

Those islands are not covered by the Taiwan relations Act, hence if it were me, and a natural progression of both expansion and territorial claims, with a push towards Independence and China becoming predictably agitated. Those Islands would be the first step for China, there was a report from the US not so long ago that says basically the same thing and fails to note they are not covered by the TRA making it even more likely to be a target as it would be even more unlikely there would be a US response.

hansioux is saying let them decide their own fate, but it's rather disingenuous, if the choice is be invaded by Chinese in response to a push for Independence or choose a peaceful handover to the Chinese. You have in effect sacrificed the islands to the Chinese, one way or the other.
58

[quote=“Zhengzhou2010”]
One the issue of increasing the likelihood of U.S. assistance if Taiwan were to rebrand the military and other parts of its government as “Taiwan”, I’m inclined to agree with Taiwanguy and others that such actions are rather more likely to provoke US (and Chinese) ire rather than aid. [/quote] You’re not making a lot of sense.

We already know that US has no problem calling Taiwan “Taiwan.” In fact, this is the only way US calls Taiwan.

Also we know that there are many ways US can help Taiwan bolster its defence. I’m only saying that US should looking into encouraging Taiwan to reform its military to solve recruitment problems, public image and support problems, morale and espionage problems.

By the way China also calls Taiwan’s military “Taiwan’s military.” (they call it “台軍、台灣軍方”) It is China’s official way of calling Taiwan’s military.

59

[quote=“Mick”]
hansioux is saying let them decide their own fate, but it’s rather disingenuous, if the choice is be invaded by Chinese in response to a push for Independence or choose a peaceful handover to the Chinese. You have in effect sacrificed the islands to the Chinese, one way or the other.[/quote]
Disingenuous??
But this is what the KMT and the Blues want anyway, to unite with China, remember? Jinmen and Mazu are overwhelmingly supporters of unification. How is it a sacrifice?

60

[quote=“sofun”][quote=“Mick”]
hansioux is saying let them decide their own fate, but it’s rather disingenuous, if the choice is be invaded by Chinese in response to a push for Independence or choose a peaceful handover to the Chinese. You have in effect sacrificed the islands to the Chinese, one way or the other.[/quote]
Disingenuous??
But this is what the KMT and the Blues want anyway, to unite with China, remember? Jinmen and Mazu are overwhelmingly supporters of unification. How is it a sacrifice?[/quote]

Well, my neighbour is a deep green, but her parents live on Kinmen, like many Taiwanese she is quite unaware that Kinmen and Matsu are not recognized as a part of Taiwan by the US or the Taiwan Relations Act and might be quite distressed to learn that the green camp thinks those islands being up for grabs is part of the “plan”. But like you say, they are deep blue supporters, so why should the DPP care anyway.

edit/ for anyone interested in reading this is the white paper I was referring to Military and Security Developments
Involving the People’s Republic of China 2015