[quote=“Arms Sales Communique (1982)”][b]In the Joint Communique on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations on January 1, 1979, issued by the Government of the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China, the United States of America recognized the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China, and it acknowledged the Chinese position that [color=red]there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China[/color].
[color=red]The United States Government[/color] attaches great importance to its relations with China, and reiterates that it [color=red]has no intention of[/color] infringing on Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity, or interfering in China’s internal affairs, or [color=red]pursuing a policy of “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan.”[/color] [/quote]
However, in terms of the sovereignty issue . . . . . . it is clear that the sovereignty of Taiwan was originally held by Japan. To my knowledge, the sovereignty of Taiwan has never been transferred to the Rep. of China, much less the PRC.
There was a post-WWII treaty which was signed in 1951, and came into effect in 1952, which clarified this. Despite the intentions to return “Formosa and the Pescadores” to China, as stated in the Cairo Declaration, Potsdam Proclamation, and the Japanese Surrender Documents, the post-WWII peace treaty is the specification of highest weight (in international law terms), and the treaty did not specify any such transfer of title.
Moreover, the Hague Regulations of 1907, which are part of the law of war, binding on all nations, specifically state that "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. " This clearly specifies the nature of “military occupation” and differentiates it from “annexation.” Based on this and related stipulations in the Hague Conventions, the events of October 25, 1945, can only be interpreted as the beginning of military occupation of Taiwan. Under international law there was no transfer of sovereignty on that date.
My point is that the PRC does not hold the sovereignty of Taiwan at the present time. Hence any US actions in regard to Taiwan cannot be construed as “infringing on Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
I bring up this entire matter to add weight to my own point of view, which is – I believe that one must interpret the three bilateral communiques (especially their specifications regarding Taiwan being a part of China) to reflect a future envisioned status of Taiwan. The assertion that Taiwan is currently a part of China is legally incorrect.
[quote]OK. Here, from the primary policy documents:
Shanghai Communique (1972) wrote:
The U.S. side declared: 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.
Normalization Communique (1979) wrote:
The Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China.
[/quote]
Not clear at all considering that the US is said that their one China policy is different from China’s one china policy. So what is it? No definition whatsoever. Can’t get much moire ambiguous than that.
Furthermore the US’ one China policy does not necessarily mean that Taiwan is part of China. The only acknowledge that China’s one China policy includes Taiwan. So does the US one China policy mean that Taiwan is not part of China. Not clear. Never stated. Deliberately ambiguous.
Seems clear enough to me.[/quote]
The key word here is “acknowledge”. Hell I acknowledge that creationists believe the world was created in 6 days. I won’t challenge that either, because what’s the point? You’re not going to change anyone’s mind, right? An acknowledgement of a situation isn’t the same as an acceptance.
Well, our policy remains the same. And the President, in the meeting, made it very clear that we support the one China policy and the Taiwan Relations Act, which is part of the three joint communiqus, and that we do not support Taiwan independence. You heard directly from the President on this very issue. The President made it very clear that the United States opposes any unilateral attempt to change Taiwan’s status, or to change the status quo. The President also made it clear that that applies to both Beijing’s possible use of force and Taiwan, itself, including referenda and constitutional reform that would change the status quo.[/quote]
I’m still not sure this is really saying that the missile referendum is included. Does any one know?
The State Department press briefing the same day is fun reading–the questioning is very sharp. There the spokesman says that the US is waiting for a response from Taiwan. But I still can’t tell whether or not the missile referendum is kosher for the US. Boucher doesn’t like the term ‘strategic ambiguity’ and denies that it exists.
A-bian’s nomination speech to the DPP is more defiant than the media has been reporting. He reaffirms that Taiwan will hold an anti-missile referendum on March 20, but he also commits himself to a referendum in 2006 on a new constitution. While I’m still not sure whether the US opposes the anti-missile referendum, I’m sure it will oppose a new constitution. Granted, 2006 is a long way off, but this is a very significant statement.
TRA or not. No one is asking the US boys to be put in the harms’ way. Logic that suggests otherwise is simply ludicrous. TRA can always be changed by the whim of the Congress. If Americans don’t support the Taiwanese cause, they can repeal the TRA by simple majority. So what’s the deal?
Let me tell you what the problem is… Mind you, the taiwanese people aren’t as belligerent as the people on the mainland… You guys tend to give in to all the threats when China suggest that you may lose the China market.
I understand that. After all capitalism needs its vast market, esp. the mythical Chinese market. Mind you, however the source of your pecuniary income.
From what I see… it can safely be said… that you Westerners are more concerned with money then human rights. So I guess i should arrange some sort of gathering that all of you can go and kiss the PRC’s asses.
[quote=“lee”]TRA or not. No one is asking the US boys to be put in the harms’ way. Logic that suggests otherwise is simply ludicrous. TRA can always be changed by the whim of the Congress. If Americans don’t support the Taiwanese cause, they can repeal the TRA by simple majority. So what’s the deal?
Let me tell you what the problem is… Mind you, the Taiwanese people aren’t as belligerent as the people on the mainland… You guys tend to give in to all the threats when China suggest that you may lose the China market.
I understand that. After all capitalism needs its vast market, esp. the mythical Chinese market. Mind you, however the source of your pecuniary income.
From what I see… it can safely be said… that you Westerners are more concerned with money then human rights. So I guess I should arrange some sort of gathering that all of you can go and kiss the PRC’s asses.[/quote]
And you say that safely from California apparently … it seems odd to me that the most belligerent of Taiwanese independence advocates (you can see many of them writing scathing letters about US policy while living in the US in our friendly Taipei Times newspaper) are living safely overseas, taking advantage of the lifestyles afforded by the same countries they curse for not recognizing Taiwan or supporting Taiwanese independence.
But you’re right, no one has asked the US military to intervene, but this is something that most people expect. I think a lot of people would be very surprised if the US did not intervene in a Taiwan-China conflict, unless the attack and defeat of the Taiwanese forces was so rapid (as some US Defense Dept. reports suggest, like 7-10 days or something) that the US wouldn’t have time to respond.
Taiwan already has a budding democracy, prosperity, and in many ways is improving day by day. What’s wrong with the status quo? Why bring on an unnecessary war? I’m sure it’s about “face” or whatever, but I don’t see that as a good reason for thousands and thousands of people to die, whether they’re Taiwanese or American.
LittleB: there are plenty of hard-core TI supporters right here in Taiwan. If you knew a bit more about Taiwanese history, you would know that there have been many very brave Taiwanese who paid a terrible price for their political views. Do you know who Lin Yixiong is? Deng Nanrong? Shi Mingde? Also, some of the Taiwanese in California are there because they or their parents were exiled there. After Taiwan became a democracy, many of them returned.
The problem with the ‘status quo’ is that if the KMT/PFP wins, they may well reach a deal with Taiwan that returns Taiwan to China on terms similar to those Hong Kong got. The referendum provides an insurance policy. There will be no unification without a vote by the people of Taiwan.
Taiwan John has written a lucid article on the referendum issue:
The US has in the past and does now provide the insurance policy. And like any insurance policy, there are limits to the types of risks covered. Those who engage in risky conduct often find it difficult to secure insurance.
I truly and sincerely sympathize with the desire that many have for Taiwan independence. However, if the Taiwanese want a referendum, they should first vote to tell the US to repeal the Taiwan Relations Act.
[quote=“LittleBuddhaTW”][quote=“lee”]TRA or not. No one is asking the US boys to be put in the harms’ way. Logic that suggests otherwise is simply ludicrous. TRA can always be changed by the whim of the Congress. If Americans don’t support the Taiwanese cause, they can repeal the TRA by simple majority. So what’s the deal?
(Cut for size - Grayson)[/quote]
And you say that safely from California apparently … it seems odd to me that the most belligerent of Taiwanese independence advocates (you can see many of them writing scathing letters about US policy while living in the US in our friendly Taipei Times newspaper) are living safely overseas, taking advantage of the lifestyles afforded by the same countries they curse for not recognizing Taiwan or supporting Taiwanese independence.
(middle part cut for size - Grayson)
Taiwan already has a budding democracy, prosperity, and in many ways is improving day by day. What’s wrong with the status quo? Why bring on an unnecessary war? I’m sure it’s about “face” or whatever, but I don’t see that as a good reason for thousands and thousands of people to die, whether they’re Taiwanese or American.[/quote]
I would put forth the example of the Israeli/Jewish people. They have a “group” that enjoy the qualities stated above and clammer for the US to help their agenda. Many ethnic groups do the same thing. Cubans would be another prime example of their continuing efforts.
Being recognized as a country is more than just about face. Without the recognition of such, it makes it harder to play on the global level. As seen with SARS, Taiwan was blocked from the WHO even though it’s requested admission before. Only after, was it grudgingly given access, on a limited basis.
But in the end US support is based on money. Who has the cash, gets the guns. Or the future market of billions of people.
The referendum is a step in the right direction. Status quo, historically speaking, is never good for long. If that was the case, slavery would still exist (since it was “overlooked” in the original US constitution). Or that the US would still belong to England.
If US policy is predicated on who has the cash or the future market of billions of people, as you say, then why doesn’t the US simply repeal the TRA and tell the Chinese that the US will not in any event defend Taiwan from any Chinese aggression?
More importantly, will Taiwan let in the inspectors in to search for WMD (which it says it doesn’t have – HA! Like we believe that. ). Given Taiwan’s vast oil resources in the Bashi Channel, a pre-emptive strike seems likely. The coalition of the willing will be showered with candies and flowers from the Taiwanese for liberating them from the threat of those 496 missiles that China has targeted on them (actually they are all aimed at Annette Lu).
A puppet government will be set up, let’s call it the Governing Council, headed and filled by people who have not lived in Taiwan for the past 20 years. The US will decide when to hold elections and how they will be framed (pun intended?). The Chicoms will dominate the new legislature and Taiwan will be an independent Special Administrative Region, just like Hong Kong and Macau.
Next time you are at a friend’s house, go to the bathroom and see what prescription medicine they have in there. Take one of each.
My personal take on this topic is that there are a lot of confused opinions on it based on the fact that no one seems to be considering the full extent of US interests, much of which is unspoken.
I’ve noticed criticisms of the Canadian government for caring only about the economic aspects of its relationships with China, comments about how the US should not make absolute commitments to the military defense of Taiwan, and criticisms of China for being bullying, expansionist and not heedful of international agreements.
I would point out in response to such comments that the US is no stranger to flexing muscle power, that any military commitment it has to Taiwan is actually very much in its own interest, and, thus, in the end, the US’ commitment to Taiwan is as much about money and power as it is about ideals.
I think it is critical to remember that with Taiwan just off the coast of China, as long as Taiwan’s current level of independence is at least maintained, the US will never have to worry about a Chinese naval presence in the northern Pacific. And this means that Japan, the Philippines, and all of the northern Pacific are likewise free from that concern.
While such a factor is obviously one that the US government would not want to give much attention to publicly and while I am certain that there are those in the US who do support the defense of Taiwan on ideological grounds, given the penchant that the US has for using military advantages as leverage, I would find it very unlikely that actual US policy regarding China and Taiwan is not dramatically shaped by such evident strategic concerns.
I would also like to comment that any concern that Lien-Soong would broker a Hong Kong-style treaty with China is completely unfounded.
One must remember that nearly all politicians are in the game for money and power. I highly doubt that there could be enough unseen/under-the-table gains for Lien-Soong in sharing any of the power and influence inherent in running a de-facto independent country to Beijing to offset the many obvious losses that such a deal would entail.
The US concern regarding Taiwan is simple and obvious. It is stated in the documents that underlie US policy toward Taiwan and China. There is no need to interpret anything, not to look for hidden meanings or unstated interests.
The US has been stating since the end of WW2 that it has a very strong interest in peace in the western Pacific.
I disagree. First, the US has always stated openly that its policy is to promote, encourage and support peace in the western Pacific. At the time the US broke diplomatic relations with the ROC and normalized relations with China, the government of the ROC was firmly committed to reunification. The US states in the three Communiques that its interest is in a peaceful settlement of the issue between the ROC (people of Taiwan) and the Chinese. The US has never stated that it opposes Taiwan independence (so long as the Chinese and Taiwanese peoples settle the matter peacefully… nor has the US stated any opposition to unification, so long as it is achieved peacefully and with the consent of the peoples in both Taiwan and China. Thus, any claim that the US particularly desires Taiwan’s current state of de facto if not de jure independence is erroneous, IMO, as there is nothing to support such a claim and plenty to debunk the same. Moreover, if the US was really intent on keeping China out of the blue water ocean, it would have never broken ties with the ROC and there likely would still be US forces stationed on Taiwan. If there is the strategic concern you (and many others believe), the US had it covered with bases on Taiwan.
Secondly, main reason the US has to worry about a Chinese naval presence anywhere is that there are tensions between the US and China. And from where do those tensions derive? They derive primarily from the US support for the regime/government on Taiwan. If the US did not support Taiwan to the disadvantage of China, US-China relations would, IMO, benefit greatly and warm up considerably. Even with the current state of tensions, the US and Chinese navies make reciprocal port calls.
The US does not need the “unsinkable” aircraft carrier anymore. When asked, the US military left the Philippines. It would leave Okinawa, if asked… and Korea too.
The fact is, the US has traditionally had a soft spot for China, and has always sought warm relations with China. The US has always maintained an “open door” policy with respect to China.
[quote=“Dean Acheson in August 1949”]The historic policy of the United States of friendship and aid toward the people of China was, however, maintained in both peace and war
We continue to believe that, however tragic may be the immediate future of China and however ruthlessly a major portion of this great people may be exploited by a party in the interest of a foreign imperialism, ultimately the profound civilization and the democratic individualism of China will reassert themselves and she will throw off the foreign yoke. I consider that we should encourage all developments in China which now and in the future work toward this end.
In the immediate future, however, the implementation of our historic policy of friendship for China must be profoundly affected by current developments. It will necessarily be influenced by the degree to which the Chinese people come to recognize that the Communist regime serves not their interests but those of Soviet Russia and the manner in which, having become aware of the facts, they react to this foreign domination. One point, however, is clear. Should the Communist regime lend itself to the aims of Soviet Russian imperialism and attempt to engage in aggression against China’s neighbors, we and the other members of the United Nations would be confronted by a situation violative of the principles of the United Nations Charter and threatening international peace and security.
Meanwhile our policy will continue to be based upon our own respect for the Charter, our friendship for China, and our traditional support for the Open Door and for China’s independence and administrative and territorial integrity.
The US has always sought good relations with China and many US administrations have hoped to achieve the same.
The easiest way for the US to advance on the goal of warm relations with Taiwan would be to simply do what every single other nation of any consequence whatsoever has already done… that is to butt out of what China considers its internal affair.
And yet, the US has assisted Taiwan in many ways. For 20 years Taiwan (along with Israel) received the largest US aide package… Taiwan had free access to US markets as a nation benefiting from the old US General System of Preferences, and of course Taiwan has been guaranteed a peaceful environment in which to grow and develop, both economically and politically…
Thus, if the Taiwanese want to risk their futures, IMO they should first inform the US, in no uncertain terms, that Taiwan neither wants nor expects US assistance in any form in the event of aggression from China.
BTW what version of the TRA etc would be accepted as the official document? English or Chinese?
On the topic of the SPIRIT of the agreement, what has SPIRIT to do with an agreement. I thought contracts, agreements went on INTENT (that being what is actually meant) as against SPIRIT (that being what we would like/hope to think it to be or mean it to be)?
TRA is an US law. English is the only language.[/quote]
Yes, but I have seen copies of it in Chinese, probably translated in Taiwan, so they’re not “official.” I showed a copy of it on the internet to a mainlander once. That was a highly effective exercise in pissing a mainlander off. He had no idea that the TRA existed.
TNT, you may be thinking of the three communiques. Both Chinese and English would be considered official. I believe that the normal practice when making treaties or communiques is for both sides to agree on the language in both copies before signing.
). Given Taiwan’s vast oil resources in the Bashi Channel, a pre-emptive strike seems likely. The coalition of the willing will be showered with candies and flowers from the Taiwanese for liberating them from the threat of those 496 missiles that China has targeted on them (actually they are all aimed at Annette Lu).