US comes out against independence

Various news outlets are reporting a shift in U.S. policy toward Taiwan (though of course it’s being denied in Washington that this is a shift).

As China Premier Wen Visits, U.S. Cautions Taiwan

Shame!

Unless of course we are talking about kowtowing to China!

The US has always been opposed to Taiwanese independence. They’ve said so repeatedly over the years, though people tended to ignore such statements for some reason. Now thanks to Chen Shuibian’s recent antics they’re being forced to be more blatant about their position, and we act all surprised? No, this isn’t a policy shift.

I don’t see it as a change of policy at all.

US relations with China and Taiwan are based on the several communiques with the PRC and on the TRA.

The US stance has always been that the resolution of the Taiwan issue must be arrived at by mutual agreement between the peoples on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. The US has always made it clear to China that it will not tolerate actions on China’s part to unilaterally resolve the issue.

The same approach is being taken with Taiwan… i.e., the US does not encourage unilateral efforts by Taiwan to resolve the issue.

And regarding the encouragement and or protection of democracy around the world… the US stance re Taiwan above is not, IMO, contradictory.

The US is currently engaged in a struggle in the Mid-East and tensions are high in Korea. Taiwan does not have the ability to defend itself against Chinese aggression and or blockades. The US is obligated (by the TRA) to defend Taiwan against any unilaterally initiated aggression from China… but the US should not be expected to assist Taiwan in a situation where Taiwan has brought on, by its own antagonistic actions, belligerence from China.

Poagao,

I would only alter what you said above as follows:

The US is not opposed to Taiwan independence, provided China agrees to the same. The US is only opposed to Taiwan independence if the same is declared unilaterally against the wishes of China.

Do you have a link? I’ve heard repeatedly that the US didn’t support Taidu, but that is not the same as opposing it.

Yeah, and that girl in the miniskirt was just asking to be raped. What the hell was she thinking being all provocative like that. :unamused: Until China starts to feel a military threat against its own country, any military threats or actions taken against Taiwan are China’s moral responsibility, and China’s alone.

US policy on Taiwan Independence has been ‘strategic ambiguity’. What they have said in the past is that they ‘do not support’ Taiwanese independence. The media reports Cranky cites are saying that the Bush administration is going to end the strategic ambiguity policy and say that the US now ‘opposes’ Taiwanese independence. This is a change in policy.

The policy of strategic ambiguity has been useful because it has not only allowed both Taiwan and China to see what they want to see in it, but also because it masks real disagreement in the Bush administration. The disciples of Heny Kissinger such as James Moriarty and Douglas Paal are counseling a pragmatic policy whereby Taiwan’s democratic aspirations must be sacrificed to appease China. The NeoCons in the administration are arguing that the US should defend Taiwan and its democratic aspirations because it’s the right thing to do and also because it is very much in the US’s interest to do so. See the following two articles for the NeoCon position:

weeklystandard.com/Content/P … 7lynce.asp

online.wsj.com/SB107058065848118700

Typical examples of the pragmatic postion would be:

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar … 3Dec5.html

There has been a very serious disagreement in Washington about how to approach the new realities in Taiwan.

Unfortunately, the pro-China faction appears to have won.

I think that analogy is a bit off the mark. You need to look at US policy and statements re the same in context.

The US is the only nation on the planet that has committed itself to the defense of Taiwan in the event that Taiwan is attacked or otherwise coerced by China in a unilateral attempt to resolve the staus of Taiwan. No other nation has taken this stance, and suffered as much for the same in its relations with China.

Unlike the girl in the miniskirt, Taiwan is free from attack unless it does more than simply show off its good looks.

I agree with that. All I am saying is that the reality is this: If Taiwan declares independence (a move I would sympathize with), it will in all likelihood face an attack by China. If American boys (and girls) are to be put into harm’s way to defend the Taiwanese, then the Taiwanese have a moral obligation, IMO, not to stir trouble… unless they want to make it clear that they neither want nor expect assistance from the US and that they are prepared to defend themselves by themselves.

I am aware that US policy in Taiwan/China has in the past been referred to as one of “strategic ambiguity”. However, I have always thought that the policy is quite clear. If you read the primary documents that are the only basis for US policy re China and Taiwan it is clear, IMO, that there has never been a change. The US has always opposed Taiwanese independence, unless it was arrived at peacefully through the mutual agreement of the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. Unless the US is now stating as its policy an absolute objection to Taiwan independence in any circumstances, then US policy has not changed.

Looking at the cite Cranky posted, the US repeatedly stated its opposition to “unilateral” movement by Taiwan toward independence.

Thus, no policy change by the US.

[quote=“tigerman”]I don’t see it as a change of policy at all.

US relations with China and Taiwan are based on the several communiques with the PRC and on the TRA.
[/quote]

The communiques are grossly out of date. In the first Communique, the US stated:

[quote]The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves.
[/quote]

The Chinese on the Taiwan side of the strait no longer maintain that “there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.” Whether they ever maintained such a postion is also questionable since they were never asked. If they were asked today, they would certainly answer no. The communiques cannot continue to server as a tenable ground for US policy towrd Taiwan.

The Tawan Relation Act in fact says:

There is nothing in the language of the Act that says that the US is released from it obligations if Taiwan ‘provokes’ China. The Act simply says that the US will “consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States.”

So if China tries to determine the future of Taiwan by threatening Taiwan with missiles, the US should be gravely concerned. If the people of Taiwan decide through a democratic referendum that they want a new constitution or independence, they are clearly attempting to determine the future of Taiwan through peaceful means. Taiwan’s referendum law is also consistent with the US’s commitment to preserve and enhance human rights in Taiwan.

The Bush administration and Tigerman are ignoring not only the letter, but also the spirit of the law.

I think Feiren’s right on two counts.

First, the US policy has been deliberately defined as ‘not supporting’ independence rather than ‘oppossing’ it. That was a deliberate distinction and they’ve said as much.

Second, the TRA is legislation and overrides other statments and communiques.

Brian

[quote=“tigerman”]
[snip]
If you read the primary documents that are the only basis for US policy re China and Taiwan it is clear, IMO, that there has never been a change. The US has always opposed Taiwanese independence, unless it was arrived at peacefully through the mutual agreement of the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. [/quote]

I think you are referring to the first communique. If so, I agree that it can be read this way although I think you are forcing your reading by changing the key word ‘settle’ to ‘agree’ (the original reads “a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves”). Another plausible reading is that China should not settle the Taiwan question by attacking Taiwan even if the people of Taiwan declare independence. I’m not saying that my reading is right and yours is wrong. Rather, I would argue that the language here is intentionally ambiguous. The Bush administration’s gloss removes that ambiguity and therefore does constitute a change in policy.

More importantly though, the first communique is based on patent fiction. In the phrase I am parsing here, the agent of any settlement is the ‘Chinese.’ But who are the Chinese? Since we are discussing a political issue, this cannot be ‘Chinese’ in the cultural sense, but rather ‘Chinese’ in the political sense. The problem is that the Taiwanese have long sinced ceased to consider themselves as citizens of China. So the whole premise of this paragraph (which the US only ‘acknowledges’)–that " all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China" is unfounded. There are no Chinese (in the political sense) on the Taiwan side of the strait, anid if they are be permitted to say so in a referendum, they will tell us that they neither maintain that there is one China, nor that Taiwan is part of China.

Finally, the Taiwan Relations Act, which says nothing about One China or Taiwan being part of China, supersedes the Communiques.

America, vis-a-vis the TRA is already IN harm’s way. Now it is up to the US to find out which path is the least dangerous: to stand up to a bully with no regard for international treaties, with territorial ambitions, little regard for human rights, and whose UN Security Council has been less than stellar, or to let that same country do as it wishes with no opposition. JFK put the country in harm’s way during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but I think we all agree now that it was for the good of the country, and the international community.

Very well said, Tigerman. I couldn’t agree more.

I think the “spirit of the law” is that neither side should follow a course of intentionlly antagonizing the other or starting a war. I think Chen Shui-bian is pushing his luck by expecting that the US will jump to help him when the missles start flying, while at the same time ignoring the US’s advice and being completely ignorant of the US’s interests. Ideally, the Taiwanese people should be allowed to voice their opinion, and I think ideally the US believes in that right. Unfortunately, we don’t live in an ideal world.

However, with that said, I don’t think anything is going to come out of this. Chen Shui-bian is just trying to get votes, China knows this, America knows this, and I think alot of Taiwanese know this as well. China has no choice to rattle its sabres or it would lose face, but they know that Chen Shui-bian wouldn’t possibly do something so stupid as to unilaterally declare independence.

[quote=“tigerman”]I don’t see it as a change of policy at all.

US relations with China and Taiwan are based on the several communiques with the PRC and on the TRA.
[/quote]

No matter. They still form the basis of US policy toward Taiwan and China.

[quote=“Feiren”]In the first Communique, the US stated:

[quote]The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves.
[/quote]

The Chinese on the Taiwan side of the strait no longer maintain that “there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.” Whether they ever maintained such a postion is also questionable since they were never asked. If they were asked today, they would certainly answer no. The communiques cannot continue to server as a tenable ground for US policy towrd Taiwan.[/quote]

I understand. However, the political changes that have occurred in both taiwan and China since 1972 notwithstanding, the fact is the people (call them Chinese, Taiwanese or people across the Strait) are still facing each other and still the status of Taiwan remains unsettled. As such, the US policy can remain constant. The names have changed, but the game is still basically the same.

[quote=“Feiren”]The Tawan Relation Act in fact says:

There is nothing in the language of the Act that says that the US is released from it obligations if Taiwan ‘provokes’ China. The Act simply says that the US will “consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States.”[/quote]

I disagree. First, the above bold text indicates clearly that it is US policy to encourage the peaceful settlement of the status of Taiwan. An unilateral declaration of independence by Taiwan will undoubtedly result in hostilities with China. The TRA cannot be read in a vacuum… it exists precisely because of the Shanghai Communique and the 1979 normalization of relations with the PRC. The Communiques explain US policy toward China and the TRA explains ho the US will deal with Taiwan after the goal of the Communique (1972) has been realized.

Peaceful means, yes. But US policy has always called on a mutually accepted settlement between the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. Thus, the TRA is meant to preserve the way of life that Taiwan had established for itself at the time the US cut diplomatic ties with the ROC and recognized Beijing. The TRA says nothing about defending Taiwan should Taiwan seek to rock the boat, so to speak. If the intention were to support Taiwan in any movement, the US could have used language similar to the Mutual Defense Treaty that was abrogated in order to normalize relations with the PRC.

I disagree. You cannot simply look at the TRA. You must look at all of the documents in order to understand the US policy toward Taiwan and China.

Yes, the US is already in harm’s way. But risks vary by degree. The US strategy of protecting Taiwan’s current status and freedoms while discouraging Taiwanese acts that would lead to war and encouraging China’s gradual movement toward political and economic freedom while discouraging the Chinese from making war on Taiwan is a sound strategy. What is the alternative?

Hopefully, the day will come when the people on both sides of the Strait can look at each other and the differences in governments and living standards will be so slight that they will wonder why they are not united or why they worry about being divided. At that time, perhaps the issue can be settled peacefully and by mutual acceptance.

In the meantime, US policy is quite good, IMO… making the best of a very difficult situation… with no help from any other nation, I might add.

[quote=“Bu Lai En”]I think Feiren’s right on two counts.

First, the US policy has been deliberately defined as ‘not supporting’ independence rather than ‘oppossing’ it. That was a deliberate distinction and they’ve said as much.

Second, the TRA is legislation and overrides other statments and communiques.

Brian[/quote]

US policy does NOT oppose Taiwan independence. US policy opposes an UNILATERAL declaration of Taiwan independence.

The TRA is US legislation and does not directly concern China. It can be repealed at any time. US policy re China is not overridden by the TRA because the TRA does not deal with China, directly.

Yes. The “Chinese themselves” referred then (and now) to the peoples on both sides of the Strait. It matters little if the politics have changed in Taiwan and many Taiwanese now do not refer to themselves as “Chinese”. The US policy intent was clearly that the people living on Taiwan and those living in China would resolve the matter jointly and peacefully.

I don’t know how you can interpret the language of the Communique as such. Seems implausible to me.

From the US perspective (and that is what we are discussing… US policy), local politics are not so important. As indicated above, the US seeks peace in this area of the world, and we don’t care what the people here call themselves. The goal of the policy is PEACE.

It wasn’t unfounded at the time. Again, notwithstanding local political changes, the US policy seeks to preserve PEACE in the Taiwan Strait… and for that goal, it is not important to the US what the locals call themselves. Yes, I understand that it is animportant distinction for the Chinese and the Taiwanese… but it isn’t one for the US.

Are they prepared to deal with the consequences of such an act?

No, the TRA does not address the issue of a Taiwan unilateral declaration of independence. However, the Communiques do address US policy regarding the settlement of the issue of Taiwan’s status… and that policy has remained constant. I’ll concede that it may have appeared more or less ambiguous at times, but the bottom line hasn’t changed.