[quote]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.
[/quote]
Quite the opposite. The Shanghai Communiques reflected the policy of normalization of US relations with China. The TRA was a reaction against this despite the opposition of President Carter at the time.
The Act talks about any aggression from China. It doesn’t talk about whether or nor it was ‘provoked’.
The day Taiwan has an annual total of volunteers for its military greater than or even equal to the number of American volunteers for the US military from my small county in South Carolina is the day I’ll support Taiwan independence.
I think the US government wants to avoid a repeat of Saigon, 1975 with the troops fighting to get on the last planes out and those not making it stripping off their uniforms and standing around the streets in their underwear. Let’s face it, the ROC’s army hasn’t exactly covered itself in glory the past 90 years, has it?
[quote]to 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]
The threat of invasion in the event of a declaration of independence is undoubtedly an “effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means”.
As above.
Oppossing Taiwan’s independence on the grounds that it might provoke an invasion by China is against the spirit of the TRA which is quite clearly in support of non-coercive peaceful resolution to the dispute.
A declaration of independence is not contradictory to the “future of Taiwan being decided by Chionese people oon both sides of the Strait” policy of the US, because a declaration of independence is not a policy for the future of Taiwan, but a recognition of current, present-day reality.
Read the TRA carefully. Wherein does it obligate the US to take any concrete action in the event of war in the Straits? I’ll tell you: nowhere. it says:
“The President and the Congress shall determine, in accordance with constitutional processes, appropriate action by the United States in response to any such danger.”
How does this obligate us to do anything? There is nothing in the TRA to prevent the Commander in Thief and the Munchkins from deciding that “no action” is the appropriate response. Whether we defend Taiwan is the result of hard-nosed political calculus, not some piece of paper with warm fuzzies disguised in diplomatic language.
[quote]to 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]
The threat of invasion in the event of a declaration of independence is undoubtedly an “effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means”.[/quote]
You are reading this in a vacuum. The Shanghai Communique stated:
The TRA obligates the US to consider appropriate actions in the event of acts by China that would seek to force an unilateral resolution of the Taiwan issue. But, the US policy is predicated the two sides jointly and peacefully resolving the issue. A Taiwanese unilateral declaration is not a joint method of resolution and it would almost certainly result in a less than peaceful resolution of the issue.
The opposition is not to independence per se, but to an unilateral and nonpeaceful resolution of the issue.
No. An unilateral declaration absolutely disregards the wishes of the people in China, regardless of the current de facto independence that Taiwan enjoys. An unilateral declaration would seek to obtain recognition of de jure independence and that would indeed change the current reality.
True enough. Canadian foreign policy is a joke. When a senior Candian offical travels to Beijing or Taipei, it is with “Team Canada” as an escort. No, they’re not a bunch of hockey players, but a group of business leaders hoping to sign trade agreements during the talks with officials. Conspicuously absent are any political scientists, China experts, human rights specialists, or cultural representatives. It’s all about the Benjamins. Or in Canada’s case, it’s all about the Betty Windsors.
Will there ever be a right time when Taiwan can unilaterally choose its own path? If we must wait for Beijing’s blessing, surely that tells us something is amiss, no? Morally, do nations not have a right (even a duty) to stand up for what they believe? And doesn’t America, as the only party involved in the TRA which it adopted as legislation, have a responsibility to defend Taiwan, regardless of Taiwan’s ability to defend itself? America’s chief loyalty must be to the rule of law, and right or wrong, for better or for worse, it has comitted itself to the defence of Taiwan. If it intends to negotiate the terms of that defence, it would be best to do that in peacetime. In times of war threats, that kind of negotiation looks like moral weakness.
The US has been saying for years now that there is only one China. stating that it does not support unilateral Taiwan independence would not be any kind of shift at all, it has always been the corollary to one China.
it would be being stated more clearly for sure, but too much ambiguity sometimes is not desirable. in my opinion, some people above are confused about the level of US commitment to Taiwan. nowhere has the US committed itself to help Taiwan in all instances. if some in power in Taiwan feel they have a blank check from the US, then a dose of clarity and reality could be a very good thing.
it might also be good to remind people that disturbances of this type over the straits can have consequences extending beyond the results of the current election campaign.
[quote=“President Bush”]We oppose any unilateral decision by either China or Taiwan to change the status quo… and the comments and actions made by the leader of Taiwan indicate that he may be willing to make decisions unilaterally, to change the status quo, which we oppose.
[quote=“Peter Brooks”]There has been no change in U.S. policy: America’s recognition of the PRC was, and is still, based on the premise that Taiwan’s future will be determined peacefully and by mutual agreement of the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. China’s deployment of 500 ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan undermines that foundation. So, Mr. Wen, call off the dogs.
America will respond to China’s military buildup by continuing to sell arms to Taiwan to maintain the military balance across the Taiwan Strait. The choice of an arms race is Beijing’s. And the security of the first democracy in Chinese history (i.e., Taiwan) is in America’s interest.
Washington has a robust, mature relationship with the government of Taiwan, and this serves everybody’s interest. It is Washington’s expectation that Taiwan, like China, will do nothing to destabilize the peaceful status quo across the Taiwan Strait - especially for domestic political purposes. Chinese threats will only strengthen Taiwan’s call for independence.
[quote=“blueface666”]The day Taiwan has an annual total of volunteers for its military greater than or even equal to the number of American volunteers for the US military from my small county in South Carolina is the day I’ll support Taiwan independence.
I think the US government wants to avoid a repeat of Saigon, 1975 with the troops fighting to get on the last planes out and those not making it stripping off their uniforms and standing around the streets in their underwear. Let’s face it, the ROC’s army hasn’t exactly covered itself in glory the past 90 years, has it?[/quote]
That’s right. Hell, Taiwan’s defense spending has steadily decreased over the years… and it wants the US to loan it money to purchase weapons, despite the fact that Taiwan has substantial foreign reserves piled up.
No, the TRA was never meant to be an absolute security blanket. Taiwan has obligations a) to prepare itself for its own defense and b) to NOT rock the boat.
Its amazing that the US apparently needs to express these obligations… I think they should be evident.
The opposition is not to independence per se, but to an unilateral and nonpeaceful resolution of the issue…[/quote]
Ok, in that case “Oppossing Taiwan’s unilateral dclaration of independence on the grounds that it might provoke an invasion by China is against the spirit of the TRA which is quite clearly in support of non-coercive peaceful resolution to the dispute.”
Same thing. Doesn’t change my point one bit.
No. An unilateral declaration absolutely disregards the wishes of the people in China, regardless of the current de facto independence that Taiwan enjoys. An unilateral declaration would seek to obtain recognition of de jure independence and that would indeed change the current reality.[/quote]
You missed my point again. A decalaration of the current independence of Taiwan (unilateral or not) is not a determination fo the future of Taiwan.
Also you quoted Bush “We oppose any unilateral decision by either China or Taiwan to change the status quo”
The staus quo of Taiwan is that it is independent. A declaration of such does not change this.
[quote=“Bu Lai En”]Ok, in that case “Oppossing Taiwan’s unilateral dclaration of independence on the grounds that it might provoke an invasion by China is against the spirit of the TRA which is quite clearly in support of non-coercive peaceful resolution to the dispute.”
Same thing. Doesn’t change my point one bit.[/quote]
It does. The “spirit” of the TRA is defensive, indeed. However, it is defensive only in regards to unilateral attempts by China to resolve the Taiwan issue in a non-peaceful manner. However, the TRA was enacted in response to the US dropping Taiwan and recognizing Beijing. And the US recognition of Beijing is predicated on the US insistance that China not attempt to unilaterally force a nonpeaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue. An important aspect of the TRA is the requirement that the US make available to Taiwan defensive weaponry in order to deter China from attempts to force the issue. The 1986 Communique dealt with continued US arms sales to Taiwan (as the 1972 Communique indicated such arm sales would cease when the threat by China ceased). As The threat from China has not ceased, the US maintains it has an obligation to continue selling arms to Taiwan.
But, the 1972 Communique stated clearly that the US policy goal was the maintenance of peace in the western Pacific (this goal is reiterated in the TRA). This maintenance of peace in the western Pacific, not the encouragement of Taiwan independence, is the “spirit” of both the US policy toward China and toward Taiwan. The US clearly stated many times, including in the 1972 Communique, that the Taiwan issue must be resolved peacefully by the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. That insistance absolutely excludes any act by either side that could be regarded as an unilateral attempt to resolve the Taiwan issue and thus jeopardize the fragile peace that exists in the western Pacific.
No. An unilateral declaration absolutely disregards the wishes of the people in China, regardless of the current de facto independence that Taiwan enjoys. An unilateral declaration would seek to obtain recognition of de jure independence and that would indeed change the current reality.
Of course it is. Such a declaration would change the status of Taiwan from that of a de facto independent State to that of a de jure independent State, and that would have an immediate and lasting influence on the determination of Taiwan’s international status in the future.
[quote=“Bu Lai En”]Also you quoted Bush “We oppose any unilateral decision by either China or Taiwan to change the status quo”
The staus quo of Taiwan is that it is independent. A declaration of such does not change this.[/quote]
Taiwan is a de facto independent State. An unilateral declaration would attempt to change the status of Taiwan to that of a de jure independent State. Certainly you can see the difference between these two conditions.
As I read your first cite, I couldn’t help but to think (again) that the “ambiguity” of US China-Taiwan policy has existed only in the minds of the media reporters. A reading of the primary documents shows that there clearly has been no change in US policy… and that US policy really hasn’t been all that ambiguous.
As I read your first cite, I couldn’t help but to think (again) that the “ambiguity” of US China-Taiwan policy has existed only in the minds of the media reporters. A reading of the primary documents shows that there clearly has been no change in US policy… and that US policy really hasn’t been all that ambiguous.[/quote]
The ambiguity also existed in the minds of the Bush administration. From the background briefing linked by Cranky:
[quote=“SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL”]However, though, we’re seeing developments on both side of the Strait, forcing us to drop some of the ambiguity that has been in the policy in the past. I will stress here that the President did tell the Chinese in no uncertain terms that we, the United States, would have to get involved if China tried to use coercion or force to unilaterally change the status of Taiwan. And it was in that context that we have been telling Taiwan increasingly clearly that we would likewise not welcome any moves on the part of Taiwan to unilaterally change the status quo.
As I read your first cite, I couldn’t help but to think (again) that the “ambiguity” of US China-Taiwan policy has existed only in the minds of the media reporters. A reading of the primary documents shows that there clearly has been no change in US policy… and that US policy really hasn’t been all that ambiguous.[/quote]
[quote=“Feiren”]The ambiguity also existed in the minds of the Bush administration. From the background briefing linked by Cranky:
[quote=“SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL”]However, though, we’re seeing developments on both side of the Strait, forcing us to drop some of the ambiguity that has been in the policy in the past. I will stress here that the President did tell the Chinese in no uncertain terms that we, the United States, would have to get involved if China tried to use coercion or force to unilaterally change the status of Taiwan. And it was in that context that we have been telling Taiwan increasingly clearly that we would likewise not welcome any moves on the part of Taiwan to unilaterally change the status quo.
[/quote][/quote]
OK, I’ll concede that some people in the Bush administration might have regarded US policy re China and Taiwan as somewhat ambiguous.
But I maintain that a) IMO US policy has never been all that ambiguous and b) stating in express terms that the US opposes unilateral moves by Taiwan toward independence is not a change in policy.
I’m not at all sure how the TRA is intended to be enforced. Let’s say China invades tomorrow. Someone who supports US intervention will presumably request a US court of some description to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the US government to intervene militarily in the issue.
Let us say there is a court which can interpret this Act of Congress is such a way as to enable the issuance of such a writ. What then ? If the government doesn’t comply, does the elected (don’t start!) government go to jail ?
The TRA:
[quote]Sec. 3302. Implementation of United States policy with regard to Taiwan
[quote=“hexuan”]I’m not at all sure how the TRA is intended to be enforced. Let’s say China invades tomorrow. Someone who supports US intervention will presumably request a US court of some description to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the US government to intervene militarily in the issue.
Let us say there is a court which can interpret this Act of Congress is such a way as to enable the issuance of such a writ. What then ? If the government doesn’t comply, does the elected (don’t start!) government go to jail ?
[/quote]
Nothing like that at all. The President has considerable power to conduct military action as he sees fit. Any court trying to influence this decision would be laughed at and/or ignored. The congress has some powers but the ball will first be squarely in the president’s court. if he ever has to get around to informing congress of a threat then you can believe the military at that moment will already be moving their asses goddamn quick to get into position for what they have to do, if they’re not actually already doing it.
[quote]
The TRA:
Sec. 3302. Implementation of United States policy with regard to Taiwan
So it took an Act of Congress to come up with this ? Would this have been the case without the TRA ?
IMHO, the TRA and the Shanghai Communiques are sufficiently vague to allow whatever interpretation may be required of them from time to time.[/quote]
You’re right, it really says nothing that is not true to begin with except that the President “is directed to inform the Congress promptly” in the event of a threat. now if “is” can have more than one meaning, how many “promptly”? you make the call.