At last, somebody said something interesting in this foolish thread. Although I haven’t checked the latest figures, $17.8 trillion is about the total size of the US government’s debt (that is to say, the total amount of US Treasury Bills outstanding). Again, haven’t looked at latest figures, but I believe China’s government holds around US$1 trillion of that debt. The rest is spread out all over the world, but the majority of the debt is held by US institutional investors (banks, pension funds and such). The annual US government budget deficit is running around $1.2 trillion per year. So if China decides to forgive the entire $1 trillion-plus of US debt that it holds, that would give the US government a balanced budget for about one year. In other words, it’s not going to get the USA out of debt, or make any significant dent in it.
This is not to say that US politicians are above selling out Taiwan for a quick injection of cash (they’d sell their own parents and children for a campaign contribution), but if anyone thinks that China can offer the USA a path to fiscal salvation through debt forgiveness, there’s a bridge in Brooklyn that I’d like to sell you.
At last, somebody said something interesting in this foolish thread. Although I haven’t checked the latest figures, $17.8 trillion is about the total size of the US government’s debt (that is to say, the total amount of US Treasury Bills outstanding). Again, haven’t looked at latest figures, but I believe China’s government holds around US$1 trillion of that debt. The rest is spread out all over the world, but the majority of the debt is held by US institutional investors (banks, pension funds and such). The annual US government budget deficit is running around $1.2 trillion per year. So if China decides to forgive the entire $1 trillion-plus of US debt that it holds, that would give the US government a balanced budget for about one year. In other words, it’s not going to get the USA out of debt, or make any significant dent in it.
This is not to say that US politicians are above selling out Taiwan for a quick injection of cash (they’d sell their own parents and children for a campaign contribution), but if anyone thinks that China can offer the USA a path to fiscal salvation through debt forgiveness, there’s a bridge in Brooklyn that I’d like to sell you.
cheers,
DB[/quote]
In the last 124 years, how many times has the United States government ever screwed over a foreign country?(the government or the people)
Just saying… anything is possible. The last thing the U.S. needs is a free and democratic China. That’s just not in the best interest of the U.S.
FYI, for many years many men were required to serve three years in the military. Not that facts or reality have any place in this fantasy thread, but I thought I’d throw it out there.
Scoff if you want but the truth of the matter is, the US is looking to curtail China’s expansion. Yes, Taiwan is probably not being transferred over to the US but the US is expanding its military presence in Asia. Or perhaps you think that the AIT needs a brand new state of the art building equipped with an elaborate security system and guard house now that Taiwan has been included in the visa waiver program. Maybe it is just a coincidence that the forward-deployed USS George Washington just recently had a combat readiness assessment disguised as a training assessment.
My guess is that the US has had it with Taiwan’s penchant for its retired generals to leak military secrets to China and has decided to take a more proactive China deterrence on its own. The US already has bases in Japan and the Philippines. In Vietnam while no base currently exists, the US military had made port calls, showing Vietnam’s willingness to accommodate US forces should the need arrive. A base in Taiwan would ensure that China’s is effectively blocked off from the Pacific Theater. Even without a base in Taiwan, China with its two million man army would have trouble with the Seventh Fleet let alone the Seventh and Third Fleet with its 5 CVNs. While the US is currently occupied with the Middle East, their long term strategy includes the Pacific as indicated by Obama’s “Asia pivot” remarks. Whether this ultimately means that Taiwan becomes a US possession ala Guam or the Virgin Islands remains to be seen.
Very good, you start seeing TRA as the biggest block for the US millitary paradigm-shift in the west Pacific. If you want such shift to be done lawfully, the only feasible way I see is for the ROC to leave Taiwan and the USMG to take over. So the transferring of the title to Formosa territory has to occur before any sub base to come to Hualien. I think this has gradually dawned on the US generals and admirals, maybe.
It is not necessary to depend on the Taiwan Relations Act.
The post-WWII San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) is of a higher legal weight than the TRA. Under the SFPT Article 4(b), the former “Japanese property” of Taiwan was/is placed under the authority of a U.S. federal agency, the United States Military Government (USMG). This is reinforced by noting that Article 23(a) specifies the United States of America as the principal occupying power.
There is certainly no prohibition on the USMG establishing military bases in Taiwan.
DEFINITION: The form of administration by which an occupying power exercises government authority over occupied territory is called “military government.”
It is not necessary to depend on the Taiwan Relations Act.
The post-WWII San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) is of a higher legal weight than the TRA. Under the SFPT Article 4(b), the former “Japanese property” of Taiwan was/is placed under the authority of a U.S. federal agency, the United States Military Government (USMG). This is reinforced by noting that Article 23(a) specifies the United States of America as the principal occupying power.
There is certainly no prohibition on the USMG establishing military bases in Taiwan. [/quote]
One problem with 4(B) of the SFPT is that ‘property’ is a concept in municipal law. Whether it applies to territory like Taiwan is doubtful.
A foreigner could buy and own a piece of land in some country, but the land would still be considered part of the territory of that country. Thus, property like land and territory are two distinct concepts.
As for Article 23(a), the ‘principal occupying power’ was over Japan proper; the SFPT was produced in the context of Japan’s post-surrender occupation. Japan had no control over their country at that time; the SFPT aimed to relieve Japan of the status of occupied-territory and restore it to a sovereign State in control of its own affairs. Certainly, 23(a) cannot be construed as the US being the principal occupying power over Taiwan.
[quote=“In July of 2012, in this thread, I”]But the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act is not a communique; it’s an Act of Congress. It’s law.[/quote] forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopi … 0#p1440210
[quote=“Nearly eight years earlier, in another thread, cmdjing”] As far as I am aware, the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act never passed. . . .[/quote] forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopi … 82#p223682
I find it a little odd that such an important bill could pass in the House by an overwhelming vote of ~340 to 70, only to fail to pass in the Senate after the PRC became alarmed. Did anybody ever check into Senators receiving BRIBES/INVESTMENT PRIVILEGES in China at that time? :no-no: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Sec … cement_Act
The U.S. has it exactly the way that they want it. Unclear. So the can keep spying on the mainland from here… Why all this legal fuss… Why change a perfect situation for the U.S. in the mountains of central Taiwan? The U.S. has nothing to gain by insisting the R.O.C. pack it up and that the island belongs to some other state known as Taiwan or the R.O.T…
Another country does not control Taiwan because there is no government called Taiwan to control it. Unless you just want to steal the ROC government which is pretty much what all of this legal discussion is about. Why not just entitle the thread, “How to steal the ROC government… legally”.
[quote=“Betelnut”]The U.S. has it exactly the way that they want it. Unclear. So the can keep spying on the mainland from here… Why all this legal fuss… Why change a perfect situation for the U.S. in the mountains of central Taiwan? The U.S. has nothing to gain by insisting the R.O.C. pack it up and that the island belongs to some other state known as Taiwan or the R.O.T…
Another country does not control Taiwan because there is no government called Taiwan to control it. Unless you just want to steal the ROC government which is pretty much what all of this legal discussion is about. Why not just entitle the thread, “How to steal the ROC government… legally”.[/quote]
This thread is the first half of the thread of discussion about ROC sovereignty. We should let this one sink. So I will respond to your post in another thread.
I guess this thread is as good of one as any to mention the stuff I came across and was reading the last couple of days. The US State Dept website has some good history stuff. I started by reading various things here:
But they also have the text of declassified internal communications and such. This includes a ton on Taiwan if anyone is interested. Here’s the report concerning the meeting with the US ambassador and CKS, when US notified him we would be recognizing PRC.
Apparently there was no advance notice that this was happening. Well – 7 hours advance notice.
I would like to dig into more of this and the discussions leading up to the switch.
One interesting thing is that ex-President Nixon sent a letter to Pres Carter after the decision was made, saying he thought it was a mistake.