A couple of quotes from the TT story on reaction to Stephen Young’s outspoken comments on the arms bill blockage and rude pan-blue behavior.
Now why does Chen Shui-bian get so much flack for saying the same thing?
Do Wang and Ma say this very often? Were they misquoted by the TaipeiTimes?
Nice one. I was wondering the same thing.
Because the pan-blue media is not interested in these news… Taiwan is only independent when the blue say it, when the green say it, it smells of TI… Welcome to Taiwan
Could it be because the people trust the pan-Blues not to start a military war with PRC over the soveriegnty issue.
Taiwan will never start a war … if started it will be by the commies … and BTW, I can say that the ROC, or is it ROT is a souvereign state …
And it’s just your imagination that the people trust the Blues more than any other party …
Everybody knows that the dude is a flip-flopper, that’s why he could not be trusted. Of course, everybody knows that when the Bluies talk about Taiwan, they are talking about ROC.
Well, would you agree it is a double standard then? Is that not unfair? I’d like to hear your justification for why KMT leaders don’t need to follow the standards that they demand of their political opponents. I bet even you can’t manage that, ac.
Anyway, I bet the greens will be too dimwitted to notice this contradiction and make hay from it.
I don’t think it is a double standard because there is a nuisance of difference between the Green version and Blue version of the Strait Issue.
The Greens question the legitimacy of the ROC while seeking a fully sovereign independent State. They also fully reject the “One China and Taiwan is part of China” paradigm.
The Blue seek a fully sovereign State based on the “One China” policy, however, disagree with the PRC on the definition of “One China.”
Of course at some point this all becomes splitting hairs, but the PRC side finds these nuance to be relevant as well.
Blame it on the natural limits of language.
Wang said exactly what Ma said:
王金平表示，中華民國為主權獨立的國家. The Republic of China is a sovereign nation.
This is a world of difference away from statements that claim Taiwan is itself a sovereign nation, independent of mainland China. They mention the Republic of China, the constitution of which still claims Taiwan and the mainland are pieces of the same nation… there’s no separation here. When Wang and Ma makes the above comments, they’re emphasizing that this China entity (which in reality only has control over Taiwan) is independent of the rest of the world (in this context, the United States).
When Chen Shui-bian makes the above comment, he’s emphasizing that this entity is independent of mainland China.
Poor work by Taipei Times. (But please nobody go off on that again…) They should have been more careful when paraphrasing Wang.
Still, I think this incident catches both Ma and Wang out on a hypocritcal limb. They frequently accuse Chen of trying to change the status quo whenever he speaks of Taiwan being the functional equivalent of a country, i.e. meeting the “normal” definition, but they are making use of the exact same argument to beat down what I feel is fair comment by a professional high-level American diplomat.
dearpeter,
I think that is dishonest, the Blues accuse of the Greens of taking Taiwan from the current Status Quo to a condition that is less stable. More specifically changes that incite the PRC side.
The Blues at this point can only voice their plans of leading Taiwan to a more stable environment.
If one is to be truly honest about the situation on Taiwan, one also needs to admit that Blues and the Greens have slightly different interpretations of Status Quo.
Note that the United States is not officially against a change in the status quo. No one is against a change in the status quo, per se. You’re missing one very key word here.
The United States (and everyone else) is against a unilateral change in the status quo, by either side. Go back and look up any official speech on this point, and you’ll see what I mean. The point is to preserve stability and prosperity, and the way of doing this is to implement only the changes that both sides can accept.
I think it’s an obvious statement that the mainland side has no problems with the “Republic of China” asserting its independent right to decide what arms it purchases from the United States.
CC,
Your last sentence is missing a clause.
I think it’s an obvious statement that the mainland side has no problems with the “Republic of China” asserting its independent right to decide what arms it purchases from the United States as lomg as the ROC decides not to purchase any arms.
cctang… the point is to preserve China out of the Pacific. Assuming anything else is pure demagogy.
As for Feiren, would having nuclear weapons mean a change in the Status Quo? I mean, it would change the way the PRC looks at Taiwan at least, or, would put the ASL to work.
I prefer to take the United States government’s statements at face value. Your “assumptions” are rarely based on good information, and I don’t have a very high opinion of your ability to speculate accurately.
If the “point” was to permanently tie Taiwan into a US-led alliance into China, the US better get started making it the 51st state. More accurately, it should’ve finished the job 30 years ago instead of isolating the ROC at the cost of engaging the PRC. So far, at least, it hasn’t done either of the above.
It looks like Chiang Kai shek had to shoulder portion if not all of the blame of rendering Taiwan isolated.
By being obstinate and vain and unreasonable in insisting on the label ‘China’, he alienated friends spurned their ‘dual representation’ solution and got Republic of China kicked out of the UN.
taipeitimes.com/News/editori … 2003277026
[i]In mid-1971, the US and other countries began to push for a “dual representation” solution. The Australian ambassador to Taipei, Hugh Dunn, wrote on June 4, 1971, to then Minister of Foreign Affairs Chow Shu-kai (周書楷): "What we would see as a desirable finish is that the People’s Republic take over the Security Council seat, and that Taiwan remains on as a member, an ordinary member, of the UN … If the UN recognizes the PRC instead of the ROC as occupying the Chinese seat, and nothing else is done, Taiwan would be out in the cold. We wouldn’t favor that resolution.
…
"In an “absolutely secret” secret document dated Aug. 3, 1971, the ministry laid out the options and Taiwan’s preferences. The first preference was that the “important question” motion be passed, which meant that the PRC would require a two-thirds vote to be admitted. The second preference was “dual recognition.” But even at this late moment, after more than 20 years of rejecting any alternative to “one China,” the Nationalist authorities would not openly embrace dual recognition.[/i]
If the United States’ only priority was “containing” a hostile China within an alliance of client states… why would it have supported the PRC’s membership in the United Nations in the first place? Other than that… I don’t really care who deserves the “blame” in this issue.
History happened, and here we are.
[quote=“cctang”]If the United States’ only priority was “containing” a hostile China within an alliance of client states… why would it have supported the PRC’s membership in the United Nations in the first place? Other than that… I don’t really care who deserves the “blame” in this issue.
History happened, and here we are.[/quote]
“Containing” China was hardly the only thing on the plate. China was also useful as a check on the Soviet Union then. In the grand scheme of geopolitics, lets face it, Taiwan doesnt really have that much of a strategic clout. Still a way out of the predicament wass offered Chiang Kai shek.
Thats history and ignoring it make you miss the big picture. In which Taiwan is not necessarily indispensable. I think the Greens see it clearly. But did the Blues?
You’re having a hard time grasping my position on this, aren’t you. Obviously Taiwan is not “necessarily indispensable” to the United States picture. That’s exactly my position.
mr_boogie suggested that the United States would never cast Taiwan loose because of its agenda of “containing” China. I think that’s a load of bull$hit, and firmly believe that Taiwan is on a fast rocket back into China’s sphere of influence.
ac_dropout said
[quote]The Greens question the legitimacy of the ROC while seeking a fully sovereign independent State. They also fully reject the “One China and Taiwan is part of China” paradigm.
The Blue seek a fully sovereign State based on the “One China” policy, however, disagree with the PRC on the definition of “One China.”
Of course at some point this all becomes splitting hairs, but the PRC side finds these nuance to be relevant as well.[/quote]
Don’t underestimate the importance of nuances to both sides. As I’ve mentioned before I believe the problem is going to be solved eventually with a “one China official-two states in reality” policy. Look at the lunacy of today where Taiwan is supposedly not recognised by governments which regularly hold talks with the government in Taipei through the so-called “trade offices” or “cultural institutes” which have the unique features of being able to issue uh, visas in the supposedly unrecognised passports of the supposedly non-existent citizenry of Taiwan/ROC.
I would have thought in my simple-minded European way that the Chinese/Taiwanese could work out some kind of confederation which would give everyone 80-90% of what they want without war (don’t bug me about my maths - politics is not a zero sum game). Hell, if the French and Germans can do it… We foreigners just don’t understand Chinese semantics, I guess.