Will The U.S. State Department Apologize to Chen Shui-bian?

The VOA has officially apologized over the misleading statements it made about the Chen administration equating the words “abolish” with “ceasing to function”:

[quote]Voice of America apologizes for its incorrect report

STAFF WRITER WITH CNA , WASHINGTON
Sunday, Mar 05, 2006,Page 3

Advertising Advertising
The Voice of America (VOA) yesterday issued a statement apologizing for its recent incorrect report concerning the National Unification Council (NUC), which led to misunderstandings between Taiwan and the US.

The VOA, which is partially owned by the US government, posted the statement on its Web site and expressed its regret…

…The VOA’s correspondent in Taiwan filed a story on Feb. 27 saying that Presidential Office Secretary-General Mark Chen (陳唐山) and National Security Council Secretary-General Chiou I-ren (邱義仁) had told reporters there was no distinction between “ceasing” and “abolishing” the NUC and unification guidelines…[/quote]

taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/ … 2003295801

Here’s the State Department’s statement:

[quote]Press Statement
Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman
Washington, DC
March 2, 2006

Taiwan Senior Taiwan Officials

The State Department wrote that statement because they knew what CSB was up to – saying different things to different people – his old trick. The VOA reporter said he was told in interview after the press conference in Taiwan, that there was no difference. The VOA only corrected the part of the report that said this was stated during the press conference.

If you read the State Department press release, in the introduction, you’ll notice that they were already informed of the explanation that the relevant people were misquoted (and presumaly the “correct” quotes would have been communicated at that point). It was obviously not satisfactory, because the press release still followed with the “expectations” for unambiguous statements. The VOA’s correction does not change the distrust of the US for CSB’s shenanigans.

Ouch, the favor is returned.

Zeugmite:

This has nothing to do with “trust”.

This has everything to do with “incompetence”.

The U.S., based on a VOA report – and nothing more – decided to issue this statement. Who were they “informed” by in the letter? The same VOA reporters that later apologized?

The point is – why didn’t they attempt to clarify this with Taipei before issuing this indignant statement, which now makes THEM look like fools.

[quote=“zeugmite”]

Ouch, the favor is returned.[/quote]

What “favour”?

It was made clear to the U.S. that Chen was not going to “abolish” the NUC.

They decided to question that assurance based on a false VOA report?

This action, clearly reeks of incompetence on the part of the State Department and demands an apology.

STOP_Ma, the existence of the VOA report was merely a convenient point of reference. “We have seen reports that” is just a way of saying “don’t try to fool us.”

Let me translate the press release for you:

Don’t try to fool us that you are trying to sell this NUC thing in Taiwan as there being no distinction between “abolish” and “ceasing activity” and looking like the NUC was abolished.

You complain that you never publicly said there is no distinction between “abolish” and “ceasing activity.” You are leaving it up to people’s imagination instead. But we don’t buy this shit. To show us you’ve got nothing to hide, you had better make sure anybody who might have been confused in Taiwan knows unambiguously that the February 27 announcement did not abolish the National Unification Council, did not change the status quo, and that the “five no’s” remain in effect.

Your promise to us was that your action would not violate the “five no’s”, as you telegraphed to us once again in the 7-point statement.

You had better stick with it. If you actually abolished the NUC, then you lied to us.

Actually keep your promise or the other side starts firing missiles at you. We don’t want that now, do we?

Zeugmite:

Whether it is a hidden message or not, it has been made public and the PRC is even using it to their advantage.

Notice this line:

Correct what record?! The false report from a partially owned U.S. propaganda machine?

The U.S. – NOT CHEN – jumped the gun here. It is up to THEM to “correct the record”. VOA already has. Now it is time that the State Department do the same.

And how many times does Chen have to say that “cease to function” is not the same as “abolish”?

You gotta be kidding. The USA apologize…
:roflmao:

What’s CSB gonna do if the USA doesn’t apologize? Start a war with the PRC all by himself?

What leverage does CSB have to extract an apology from the USA?

[quote=“ac_dropout”]You gotta be kidding. The USA apologize…
:roflmao:

What’s CSB gonna do if the USA doesn’t apologize? Start a war with the PRC all by himself?

What leverage does CSB have to extract an apology from the USA?[/quote]

AC – I’ll say it again – you’re acting like an idiot.

The question is “rhetorical” (you can look that word up on your own). And who said anything about “war”?

Of course I’m not expecting an apology from the U.S. They haven’t apologized with any of their multiple historical blunders over the past 5 years.

But now it is known that the State Department is backing up this claim of “ambiguity” based on VOA reports. Sounds to me like they have some explaining to do, if anyone.

What IS their “hidden” message? That should be the next question in the press conference. Lay it out in the open, boys.

“Will The U.S. State Department Apologize to Chen Shui-bian?”

Dear Mr Chen

We are really really sorry that you are a complete and utter tosspot who couldn’t run a bath, never mind a country of 23 million people.

Yours faithfully

The State Department

“Will The U.S. State Department Apologize to Chen Shui-bian?”

A good one, dude. Made my day.

Doesn’t seem like the apology’s coming any time soon.

Today’s Chinese-language press reporting that US Senate Committee on Armed Services chairman John Warner (Virginia, R) stated at a Senate hearing today that, with the “inappropriate and mistaken actions of elected Taiwanese officials” on the NUC issue, “I question whether the United States would assist Taiwan militarily under the current situation”. (paraphrasing from the Chinese quote)

[quote=“cctang”]Doesn’t seem like the apology’s coming any time soon.

Today’s Chinese-language press reporting that US Senate Committee on Armed Services chairman John Warner (Virginia, R) stated at a Senate hearing today that, with the “inappropriate and mistaken actions of elected Taiwanese officials” on the NUC issue, “I question whether the United States would assist Taiwan militarily under the current situation”. (paraphrasing from the Chinese quote)[/quote]

What a nice thing to say seeing as the US senators frequently fuck up.

The US doesn’t want any change that involves them militarily. They would rather Taiwan and China sort things out peacefully. That may or may not happen. China will never allow the people of Taiwan to decide their own future as they insist Taiwan is a part of China.

Taiwan prefers the status quo as their is no benefit to climing outright independence ( likely war ) or joining China due to limited freedoms.

It’s hard to take away the freedoms people now enjoy.

People should also consifer that Taiwan has a very recent democracy. It’s far more stable the the US was in it’s democratic infancy after the War of Independence. We should accept that in a democracy not all is perfect.

Perhaps we should go back to one party rule where people who disagree with the government get a bullet to the head or the gas chamber. Certainly AC Dropout proposes that.

Is it that obvious? I’m more of a poison one’s coffee or use of non-lethal homemade bullets kind of Machiavellian government controls.

Note how many online rivals on forumosa have mysteriously disappeared after I started posting. sinister laughter fade to black exit stage left

[quote=“comfortably numb”]
The US doesn’t want any change that involves them militarily. They would rather Taiwan and China sort things out peacefully. [/quote]

While this is probably going through the minds of many Americans, I’m not sure about the leadership being wholeheartedly opposed to war in the East. Many people make money from the adversity suffered by others. War profiteers exist in America, and if you hadn’t noticed, large scale military actions have recently occured to back up my point.

In addition, the US is reluctantly in the process of removing troops from Japan and South Korea, forcing an increased Navy deployment in the Pacific. Wouldn’t Taiwan offer a convenient place to station troops as a kind of “dagger in the heart” for China?

It was thel USA that decided to recognize the PRC over ROC and the troops were pull out.

By re-stationing the 7th fleet in ROC against would definitely break status quo and re-ignite the Chinese Civil War.

That’s why troops are leaving Okinawa for Guam. However, the Japanese don’t feel obligated to pay the USA for moving USA troops off the island and paying for USA facilities in Guam.

That’s the problem with the USA military it ask for too much money from their allies. Whether it be Japan, Saudi Arabia, or ROC. Usually these military alliance weakened shortly after the USA asked for too much money.

US senator tells Taiwan not to stir trouble
But Taipei’s Foreign Ministry rejects his claim that Washington may not defend island if it starts a conflict with Beijing

ASSOCIATED PRESS in Washington and LAWRENCE CHUNG in Taipei

An influential US senator has warned Taiwan against moves that could spur armed conflict with the mainland, saying Washington may not come “full force” to the island’s rescue.

The comment by Senator John Warner came as former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage arrived in Taiwan to gain a better understanding of the latest cross-strait tension, escalated by Taipei’s scrapping of a presidential body tasked with eventual unification with the mainland.

“If a conflict with China were to be aided by inappropriate and wrongful politics generated by the Taiwanese elected officials, I am not entirely sure that this nation would come full force to their rescue,” Senator Warner was quoted as saying on Tuesday.

Mr Warner, who heads the Senate’s Armed Services Committee, issued the warning during a committee hearing attended by US military officials responsible for Northeast Asia.

The Republican senator described last week’s decision by Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian to shut down the National Unification Council as “one of those unfortunate incidents that seems to continue to arise”.

Mr Warner said he supported Taiwan’s strengthening of its military in the face of the mainland military expansion, “but at the same time, they’ve got to learn how to … tone down their heated politics”.

However, Taiwan’s Foreign Ministry denied Mr Warner had said that the US might not come to Taiwan’s aid if the island was blamed for spurring a conflict with the mainland.

“After checking, from the beginning to the end, we have found nothing like that,” said ministry spokesman Michel Lu Ching-lung. :loco:

Defence Minister Lee Jye yesterday said in a legislature session that the US had never discussed with Taiwan whether it would come to the island’s aid if it declared formal independence.

He said his ministry had detected no unusual military movements by the mainland side.

Mr Lee pointed out that in the same Senate committee hearing, Admiral William Fallon, head of the US Pacific Command, noted that tensions between the mainland and Taiwan were “significantly reduced” from a year ago.

In the hearing, Admiral Fallon acknowledged that the US was “trying to walk a thin line” in supporting the mainland’s efforts to act as a positive force in the region while also honouring its obligations to defend Taiwan.

Admiral Fallon said Mr Chen’s decision was “not particularly helpful”. But he also noted Beijing’s comparatively “muted response” to Mr Chen’s move - a change, he said, from its previous reactions to developments in Taiwan.

Mr Chen’s announcement last Monday that the council “ceases to function” and its guidelines “cease to apply” triggered concern from the US and protests from Beijing, which sees the act as Mr Chen’s first move towards independence, a step the mainland has warned will lead to war.

Washington later demanded that Taiwan state clearly whether the council had been abolished as this would constitute a breach of Mr Chen’s pledge not to change the cross-strait status quo.

Mr Lu said Taiwan had continued to communicate with the US over the “cessation” of the council and believed that a mutual understanding on the issue would be achieved soon.

Mr Armitage is expected to meet Mr Chen and opposition leader Ma Ying-jeou during his brief stay.

He said yesterday that he had not come to Taiwan with a message from US President George W. Bush, but hoped to gain a better understanding of the reunification council issue.

US senator tells Taiwan not to stir trouble
But Taipei’s Foreign Ministry rejects his claim that Washington may not defend island if it starts a conflict with Beijing

The CSB administration, much like ShrimpCrackers, says: No! You MUST defend me even if I start a conflict! It’s my right. You MUST. If you don’t, we’ll send Mr. Minister of Foreign Affairs Mark “LP” Chen to use the words “booger” and “balls” on you!

[quote=“zeugmite”]US senator tells Taiwan not to stir trouble
But Taipei’s Foreign Ministry rejects his claim that Washington may not defend island if it starts a conflict with Beijing

The CSB administration, much like ShrimpCrackers, says: No! You MUST defend me even if I start a conflict! It’s my right. You MUST. If you don’t, we’ll send Mr. Minister of Foreign Affairs Mark “LP” Chen to use the words “booger” and “balls” on you![/quote][quote=“zeugmite”]US senator tells Taiwan not to stir trouble
But Taipei’s Foreign Ministry rejects his claim that Washington may not defend island if it starts a conflict with Beijing

The CSB administration, much like ShrimpCrackers, says: No! You MUST defend me even if I start a conflict! It’s my right. You MUST. If you don’t, we’ll send Mr. Minister of Foreign Affairs Mark “LP” Chen to use the words “booger” and “balls” on you![/quote]

From what I am told, there are congressional resolutions that restrict the United States Presidents’ ability to NOT go to war with China if China wages war on Taiwan.

Not necessarily the otherside, however closing a non functional commitee that has a budget of $33 USD? Come on, its dead already.

If closing committees worth $33 is waging war, that would be hilarious.

Anyway, the United States has already declared that President Chen has NOT changed the status quo and that it is merely abolishing the NUC. So whats with CCTang digging up old articles that were speculative and mostly say contrary?

In addition, how come there are more senators in the Taiwan Caucus every year? Hahahaha

Well the USD is falling, so it probably worth 35 USD by morning.

If the money is so insignificant why spend the X amount of NT on the administrative cost in “abolishing” the committee in the first place.

From a pure economic stand point that makes even less sense. CSB is not working for free, his aides aren’t working for free. Why is he spending so much time on this instead of other things.

I mean of all the thing in ROC that demands his attention, this is what he focuses on, a defunct committee that basically helps keep stability in Status Quo that cost the ROC taxpayers a faction of a NT per person.

Got any other insightful reason why CSB abolished this committee for the greater good of ROC, Taiwan?

[quote=“zeugmite”]US senator tells Taiwan not to stir trouble
But Taipei’s Foreign Ministry rejects his claim that Washington may not defend island if it starts a conflict with Beijing

The CSB administration, much like ShrimpCrackers, says: No! You MUST defend me even if I start a conflict! It’s my right. You MUST. If you don’t, we’ll send Mr. Minister of Foreign Affairs Mark “LP” Chen to use the words “booger” and “balls” on you![/quote]

Where do you draw the line with respect to “spurring a conflict”, zeugmite?

  • freezing a defunct Taiwanese government body?
  • rejecting a couple of panda bears?
  • updating the Taiwanese constitution?

Notice that all 3 of these examples are decisions that noone would argue should be made by the PRC. Noone, except the PRC, perhaps.

Now, please consider these examples:

  • creating a law that directs the military to attack
  • calling Taiwan part of the PRC
  • increasing the amount of offensive weapondry 10+% each year pointed at Taiwan.

I would argue that there is more “spurring a conflict” in these actions than anything Taiwan has done.

By your definition, a abused girlfriend deserves what future physical abuse she gets because she has made the decision to live her own life.