After a discussion in the flat last night, I’ve got a question for those of you more clued-up on this than I:
A belief I’ve heard stated repeatedly in discussions like this is that if Taiwan were to declare independence, that would render the TRA void. Having read through the TRA a few times today, I don’t see where that comes into it. Am I missing something? Or is it an interpretation of Sec. 3301b(4):
Are those making that argument saying that a declaration of independence does not constitute “peaceful means”?
“threaten the peace and security of the Western Pacific” is open to interpretation. If the referrendum lead to the weakening of PRC-USA bilateral relationship, USA could use it as an exit strategy to not assist TI efforts.
In any event USA doesn’t support unilateral move on either side. If Taiwan held a referrendum, it would be an unilateral move.
Except that that’s a total misparsing of the sentence. The clause says that the US considers the use of non-peaceful means a threat to the peace and security of the WP. How is a referendum non-peaceful?
And which document gives the US the “no unilateral moves” cushion? It certainly isn’t addressed in the TRA, as far as I can see, although I’m ready to be corrected on that point.
It’s a question of policy. There is no ironclad commitment there in any case. Ultimately the president decides what appropriate action is, and under what circumstances action will be appropriate. I believe also that if Taiwan independence had been considered a possible outcome when the act was written you would have seen a different document.
That’s pretty much the overall idea I got too - there’s nothing guaranteeing US military intervention, because all they’re “required” to do by the TRA is to decide on “appropriate” action.
Another interesting thing I found reading through the TRA that could make for interesting ideas:
The TRA states that US diplomatic recognition of the PRC is based on good faith that Taiwan’s future will be resolved peacefully. This implies that if the PRC takes military action to resolve said issue, the US is could potentially immediately drop recognition of the PRC and switch it back to the ROC. Given the weight such a switch in recognition could carry internationally, how far do you think that possibility could slow down aggression from the PRC? Personally I don’t think it’s much of a hindrance, but it is an interesting concept.
I really don’t think they would switch, but if they did seriously dangle that threat over the PRC’s head, do you think it would make a difference? The PRC would have a lot to lose if such a switch happened…
I think the whole premise of this thread is wrong. The goal of international treaties and agreements like the ‘One China’ principle and the TRA is not to constrain what the USA can/should do, but to give them an excuse to do what they think is the right thing anyway.
In the case of a declaration of independence, then the US would decide on what response they think is right, and then see how they should justify it via e.g. the TRA. Not the other way round.
I don’t think the US would ever switch - but they might ‘do a Vanuatu’ and acknowledge the ROC/Taiwan. It would then be up to the PRC whether they want to cut relations with the US. Of course, at this point we’d all probably have more immediate things to worry about than what the Taiwan embassy/trade office is officially called …
…You mean the total economic collapse of the global economy as we know it, is not in PRC interest.
From a USA centric perspective I have to agree with david, the whole point of the TRA is to be ambiguous. To give the impression that USA has interest in the area, but does not over commit to any particular action or position.
…You mean the total economic collapse of the global economy as we know it, is not in PRC interest. [/quote]
If all of the USA, Japanese, British and TAIWAN companies pulled completely out of CHINA, then YES, the PRC would stand to lose a lot more than the USA. These companies could have some other third world country manufacture their junk for sale at Walmart. However with striking workers, the backbone of the Communist party, or are corrupt cadres and rich businessmen now the backbone? Anyway, if they used force against the strikers, wooo, watch out for the backlash even from their partner in crime the French.
I agree entirely. I don’t think the TRA is any sort of definitive document whatsoever. I think, though, that David missed the point - I just thought that some of the things in the TRA could make for interesting discussions, particularly parts that aren’t ever really mentioned but have interesting hypothetical implications, like the diplomatic switch.
Only if USA can convince the rest of the 1st world nations to also switch recognition would the threat have any significance.
For the past 5 years the the political leverage against the PRC has been to change the country to “developed” world status, so it cannot qualify for international aid.
Not the mention USA would have to prepare economically for the backlash if trade with PRC is disrupted over this switch. I mean last week the USD slipped when the PRC merely suggested it was cutting back purchasing US bonds. They had to doubleback and restate there was no policy change on the PRC part to purchase USA bonds.
Not the mention USA would have to prepare economically for the backlash if trade with PRC is disrupted over this switch. I mean last week the USD slipped when the PRC merely suggested it was cutting back purchasing US bonds. They had to doubleback and restate there was no policy change on the PRC part to purchase USA bonds.[/quote]
Well it’s in their interest no? Cheaper US dollar makes their exports less profitable. I think in a trade war the US would have much more leverage.
The last thing China wants is to lose its lovely trade surplus with the U.S. The last thing the U.S. wants is to lose the Chinese partially funding its debt. I think that at this moment in time, if the U.S. adopted joint recognition, the prospect of a true economic break would be slim. However, it would cause the Chinese to accelerate their movement towards Europe. Of course, I doubt Europe would be unscathed. I bet the dollar would depreciate more and cause them quite a few headaches.
A weak dollar has a ripple effect to Japan and every other country that imports into the USA, including Taiwan.
It is quite myopic to see the PRC effects on the global economy as being trival and something Taiwan could survive. The USA perhaps, PRC maybe, but Taiwan will be sent into the economic dark ages.
Taiwan would lose its manufacturing base and consumer market from both sides of the Pacific.
You are right about that one, but that underscores the folly of investing so heavily in one market (PRC), especially one that harbors a potentially hostile political situation. If I were a Taiwanese businessman, I would be looking heavily into SE Asia. Of course…I am not a Taiwanese businessman.
Taishang have been looking all over for a place like China. Africa, SE Asia, South American etc. However, only PRC has been consistently stable by comparison to be a profitable base for manufacturing.
Now if I were a Taishang I would support the local party that doesn’t instigate the strait issue, and keep plenty of back up plans to protect company assets and resources, in case the worst happens. Like CSB becoming life-long dictator or anything along those lines.
