Trump tells Chinese president US will honor 'one China' policy

In American experience, we paid for our independence with our blood. It was costly, but freedom was that dear to us. If freedom isn’t worth dying for, it isn’t worth living for.

Where the rubber meets the road, most Taiwanese are not willing to fight a war with China, rather they think it’s not so bad being a satellite of China after all; their personal life wouldn’t be so much affected. China understands the power of this, which is why they always use the issue.

Lot of this is changing, Taiwanese votes get jaded with it and appear to be bolder, this is expected as democratic tendencies take root in the whole national character. Taiwan is only what…20 or 30 years democracy. The old people still have authoritarian mindset, which they transmit to children and grandchildren, it takes time to develop democratic and liberty thinking, but probably will start with the very young as they grow up and have kids and slowly that authoritarianism gets all rooted out.

That’s not a realistic comparison under the circumstances. Without active French intervention ultimately intended to serve their own political goals, it wouldn’t likely have succeeded either.

What makes you think Taiwan would be alone? US would definitely be involved because it’s our law. If Taiwan declares it’s status as a country, which is reality, and China invades, which is the most outrageous behavior? Which action will the nations most likely rebuke?

I can’t imagine anyone saying, well, that insolent Taiwan, they had it coming, they deserved that. No one identifies with China’s philosophy on this posturing, making everyone believe what isn’t. They go along with it because China is big, but if Taiwan started feeling its oats and rightly expressed indignance at these obvious violations on their sovereignty, nations understand this, democratic ones, it wouldn’t be long, they would stand by you as long as you stand for yourself. But if you’re not willing to risk it, why should they risk anything for you?

The reason US has been nippy about your moves toward independence in the past is because our law commits us to war with China in the event of invasion. But when Taiwan cares deeply enough about their country that they are willing to fight for it and there’s no changing this course, this technicality will be ironed out and we’ll be right behind you. As it is now, US doesn’t want to fight China on behalf of your independence for you.

[quote=“jotham, post:29, topic:158195, full:true”]
What makes you think Taiwan would be alone? US would definitely be involved because it’s our law. If Taiwan declares it’s status as a country, which is reality, and China invades, which is the most outrageous behavior? Which action will the nations most likely rebuke? [/quote]

The law doesn’t say that we’ll “definitely” be involved. I’ve always felt we would definitely be involved if China took unilateral action (don’t ask me now with this shit going on.) But Taiwan unilaterally declaring its status as a country would mean all bets are off. If Taiwan did so, and China invaded, it would be totally outrageous. A “rebuke” would be all Taiwan could count on though, and it would be absolutely useless as should be obvious.

I can’t imagine anyone saying, well, that insolent Taiwan, they had it coming, they deserved that. No one identifies with China’s philosophy on this posturing, making everyone believe what isn’t. They go along with it because China is big, but if Taiwan started feeling its oats and rightly expressed indignance at these obvious violations on their sovereignty, nations understand this, democratic ones, it wouldn’t be long, they would stand by you as long as you stand for yourself. But if you’re not willing to risk it, why should they risk anything for you?

Never mind what they’re going to say. Are they going to do something? Now, not later? Again, the US has made it clear in the past that they don’t want Taiwan to rock the boat, even with minor things. Taiwan trying to “risk” anything would just be seen as irresponsible and wouldn’t be rewarded. That sucks but that’s the reality. And if that’s the way Taiwan wants to go, then it is. But I won’t be blaming them if they don’t.

The reason US has been nippy about your moves toward independence in the past is because our law commits us to war with China in the event of invasion. But when Taiwan cares deeply enough about their country that they are willing to fight for it and there’s no changing this course, this technicality will be ironed out and we’ll be right behind you. As it is now, US doesn’t want to fight China on behalf of your independence for you.

I don’t see it that way at all for the reasons I’ve said. We’re not going to fight for Taiwan’s independence under any circumstances. We’ll definitely fight (at least I used to say definitely) in the case of unilateral action by China to change the status quo. Also, you’re misinterpreting the law. The most directly stated portion says:

Section 3. 3.
The President is directed to inform the Congress promptly of any threat to the security or the social or economic system of the people on Taiwan and any danger to the interests of the United States arising therefrom. The President and the Congress shall determine, in accordance with constitutional processes, appropriate action by the United States in response to any such danger.

https://www.ait.org.tw/en/taiwan-relations-act.html

It doesn’t commit us to anything and certainly not in the case of unilateral action by Taiwan to change the status quo. That was never the intent of it. That’s why the US has been snippy in such cases. Put bluntly, it’s fair warning that our friendship comes with a leash. And I say that believing that we’re the best friends Taiwan has and the only one who would do anything concrete in the case of unilateral action on China’s part.

The problem is more about various states wanting to or agreeing to transfer the control of Taiwan to China, in order to appease China and to cajole China into becoming a good neighbour. It’s not about a Chinese province seeking to kick out the central government of China to establish a new state.

Even if there’s no human population on Taiwan, the same intention to appease still holds, regardless. And actually the world is mostly fed up with China that’s why it seems easier to throw a piece of something at China and hope China will shut up.

Am I right?

The Chinese tried to annex Taiwan in 1949 and 1958 and 1996. They paid with their blood in 1949 and 1958, but in the case in 1996, the Chinese decided they did not want to pay with their blood. In all three cases they did not pay with enough blood to achieve meaningful results.

So I am not sure why you are talking about. It doesn’t make much sense.

They TRA authorizes the President to conduct kinetic or non-kinetic operations on Taiwan without having to go through Congress. For example if a US drone is ordered to strike a target in the littoral area near or on Taipei, it wouldn’t really entail a war between US and any state. As we know, not all states have historically declared war against US even while they were attacking US military in the process. Vice versa too.

Taiwan has proclaimed independence (albeit without specifying from whom) many times in various ways, but still nobody in China was willing to pay with enough blood by coming into Taipei. It is true though, instead of paying with enough blood, the Chinese proclaim they will annex Taiwan. Various states find the prospect of such event horrible and scary, and therefore these states assure China that Taiwan is not yet independent of China.

China is currently against any state on Taiwan because China is currently not ready and not capable of defending its military on Taiwan against potential US-Japan military strike on Taiwan. By constantly threatening to annex Taiwan, China can convince US & Japan to give China more time to prepare for defending Taiwan. If China agrees to a Taiwan state now, a Taiwan state would then be free to enter into a military alliance with US or Japan, and that will make it even more difficult for China to prepare for Taiwan’s defence against US-Japan. That’s why China opposes to a Taiwan state.

Once China feels it is ready to defend Taiwan against any US-Japan attack on Taiwan, China wouldn’t be against a independent Taiwan, because whether there is a state or not, China can and will still just go ahead and annex the territory, wipe out that state, and hold the territory against potential US-Japan airstrike on that territory.

The key factor is Chinese ability to defend Taiwan against US-Japan strike on Taiwan. Taiwan’s declaration of independence on January 1st is not a factor because China can still convince various state that Taiwan is not yet independent. Various states would agree that Taiwan is not yet independent despite Taiwan’s declaration, therefore giving China more time to prepare for military actions and defence capability. Once China is ready to defend Taiwan, say on December 31st of the next year, China will still annex Taiwan. The thing about statehood is that, China can will annex another state. The idea that just because a state is a state, it is immune to being annexed or wiped out, is purely a European idea. China is not morally bound by that kind of idea.

[quote=“tempogain, post:30, topic:158195, full:true”]
The law doesn’t say that we’ll “definitely” be involved. I’ve always felt we would definitely be involved if China took unilateral action (don’t ask me now with this shit going on.) But Taiwan unilaterally declaring its status as a country would mean all bets are off. If Taiwan did so, and China invaded, it would be totally outrageous. A “rebuke” would be all Taiwan could count on though, and it would be absolutely useless as should be obvious.[/quote]
What do you mean all bets are off? TRA says nothing about Taiwan’s declaring itself. Reagan’s six assurances, which every administration has confirmed, even says we don’t recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan.

USA is nippy about Taiwan declaring itself precisely because the TRA strongly militates against a forceful resolution to the problem. That materializes into military invention. Only a Democrat like Obama would look at technicalities to get out of it, and I wouldn’t doubt that he would. I think Trump would be more respectful about executing the “spirit” of the law.

Never mind what they’re going to say. Are they going to do something? Now, not later? Again, the US has made it clear in the past that they don’t want Taiwan to rock the boat, even with minor things. Taiwan trying to “risk” anything would just be seen as irresponsible and wouldn’t be rewarded. That sucks but that’s the reality. And if that’s the way Taiwan wants to go, then it is. But I won’t be blaming them if they don’t.

Perhaps as things are now, with Taiwanese unwilling to fight for their independence. If there is a revolution in thinking here, if there is a movement, if Taiwanese get jaded enough and something arises, a pride, a consciousness, a heartbeat for Taiwanness, which I believe is getting stronger, it will naturally express itself with declarations that no nation could think to rebuke. I don’t think it’s quite there yet, but I’m encouraged by the last election, first time Taipei area voted for green president, that’s a milestone. If you move Taipei, the greater part of Taiwan is already there.

I do think enough nations are wary of Chinese agression, such as Korea and Japan, that were USA to get involved, they would be there too, not so much in support of Taiwan, as to counter a huge out-of-control China. You have no idea how outrageous China invading is, you have to figure even China knows that invasion is not really an option.

The intent of the TRA was in response to Carter recognizing Beijing as China, when we hadn’t before. The Congress was angry at Carter for leaving Taiwan vulnerable and quickly drew up these acts to protect Taiwan from China coming in and taking their possession that Carter seemed to give them. Again, only a Democrat would look at technicalities to get out of a responsibility. But Trump most likely would execute the spirit of the law.

Funny how you say that lots of Taiwanese ppl still have authoritarian mindset (not that it’s untrue). America is a democracy of 200-300 years and look where you are now.

It doesn’t matter that we don’t recognize Chinese sovereignty. We’ve said on many occasions that we oppose any unilateral action by either side to upset the status quo. Here’s one example:

Perhaps it’s worth pointing out that the status quo does not include Taiwan independence.

I’m not interested in the prattering about party politics here at all; it just further demonstrates a lack of understanding of the issue. These are long-standing policies which have lasted throughout multiple administrations from either party.

You can accuse Taiwan of pandering to its fears if you like, but counting on anyone to pull its rocks out of the fire in the case of a unilateral independence declaration is simply delusional. And now there’s a president who seems intent on putting US interests first, even in the case of long-standing commitments.

I’m not really sure what you mean. I don’t understand the way that you’ve characterized the problem.

If China attacks the USA will do nothing except wrote a strongly worded letter.
Yes the USA could beat China militarily but at what cost. If even one nuke made it through there would be riots in the USA. Plus what stops China from just saying eff you to all the surrounding countries it has a beef with and hitting them with nukes especially if they are losing.

That’s the reason countries go nuclear, so you know not to mess with them. Once north Korea gets em that’s the end of tough talk against them too

Yes, I already said I understand that administrations tell Taiwan to back off; that’s just business as usual. It’s because of the TRA, which say nothing of declaring independence. In fact, the TRA says it is the policy of USA:

to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.

Well, how to you effectively resist an invasion? Obama might give them a lecture, or draw another red line. But Republicans more likely to see a green light to use military force to resist military force.

I don’t think Taiwan should count on anyone but themselves. They’ve got to evolve to a point that their liberty is so dear to them, they are willing to die for it, the world be dam—d. Even so, once the step is taken, it’s not hard to imagine support for this.

Putting America first is standing by democracies and allies in the free world, who believe, live, and govern, according to our values and commitment to liberty, which Obama and Democrats don’t usually do. They treat our enemies better than our friends. Like Carter, for example, who betrayed Taiwan by recognizing Beijing as One China.

“To maintain the capacity” means just that. It doesn’t mean defend, or not defend, or defend when there’s an independence claim, or not.

More partisan nonsense, ugh. Anyway, yeah.

Ha, you’re arguing rhetoric, trying to find an out, loopholes. It’s like the Republican judge who wanted to charge someone with DUI in the spirit of the law when he caused a traffic accident on his horse. The Democrats wouldn’t because of the technicality he wasn’t in a car.

Opines such Republican judge (to Mr. Ed theme song):

A horse is a horse, of course, of course,
but the Vehicle Code does not divorce
its application from, perforce,
a steed, as my colleagues said.

“It’s not vague” I’ll say until I’m hoarse,
and whether a car, a truck or horse
this law applies with equal force,
and I’d reverse instead.

Because I cannot agree this statute is vague or ambiguous, I respectfully dissent.

— Noel v. Travis, 857 A.2d 1283, 1289 (Pa. 2004)

That’s absurd. You’re saying the law says something that it doesn’t. I’m pointing out that it doesn’t say what you’re saying it does. That’s not rhetoric, that’s English.

If law weren’t open to interpretation we wouldn’t need a Supreme Court.

What I want to know is, was the horse drunk?

OK here’s a law:

(A) No person shall drive a motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar on any street, highway, or property open to the public for vehicular traffic while using a handheld electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a text-based communication.

Could you interpret this to mean, that, for example, we should eat a doughnut and a regular coffee for breakfast on alternate Thursdays? Because that’s basically what you just asserted.

Forget the law, if I were a Democrat, I’d find it in the Constitution in a jiffy if I twisted myself into a pretzel enough.