Zoellick warns on Taiwanese independence

I haven’t seen this discussed here yet. The strongest comment by a administration official I’ve seen yet.

US warns Taiwan on independence
Official says any move from Taipei would drag America into war it does not want with China

AGENCIES in Washington and LAWRENCE CHUNG in Taipei

Next Story
The US has sounded a blunt warning against Taiwan seeking independence, saying such a move would only mean war.

In a hearing before a congressional committee on Wednesday, Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick said that if Taiwan declared independence, the United States would be drawn into a war that it did not want between Taiwan and the mainland.

During a hearing in which he highlighted the mainland’s “near-term military build-up”, Mr Zoellick said Washington had to be “very careful” in its balancing act between Taiwan and Beijing.

“The balance is that we want to be supportive of Taiwan while we’re not encouraging those that try to move toward independence,” he said. “Because, let me be very clear: independence means war. And that means American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines.”

He defended the US government against complaints it had snubbed Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian by refusing his request to stop in San Francisco or New York during his Latin America visit last week, and denied mainland influence on the decision.

“We make our own decisions. We don’t clear them with China. We don’t negotiate them with China,” Mr Zoellick said.

US officials have expressed disapproval over Mr Chen’s decision to scrap a council dedicated to the eventual reunification of Taiwan and the mainland. Rejecting his transit request was seen as a snub.

Mr Zoellick also told the committee the mainland’s economic and military growth had made it a rising global influence.

He said the central government pursued its interests in a “very calculated way, with economic growth, political-military strength and interstate relations”.

“The policy of China tends to be more one of non-interference,” he said.

Mr Zoellick said Beijing should use its ties with North Korea to exert more pressure to dismantle the country’s nuclear weapons programme.

China is “a little hesitant,” Mr Zoellick said. “It doesn’t use those economic ties in the full sense because it’s worried about what a collapse in North Korea might do.”

Speaking in Taipei yesterday, Washington’s top envoy to Taiwan, Stephen Young, director of the American Institute in Taiwan which represents US interests, said the US stood by its security commitment for Taiwan.

“In fulfilling the US commitment under the Taiwan Relations Act, we currently have extensive - though unofficial - military co-operation with Taiwan,” Dr Young said. “In addition to significant arms sales, the US government works closely with Taiwan’s military establishment to support their efforts to embrace a defensive strategy that promotes stability.”

But he also stressed the US did not want to be dragged into war by Taiwan if it chose to push for independence through amending its constitution.

He advised Taiwan against seeking to undermine the cross-strait status quo, while asking Beijing to foster dialogue with the island’s elected leaders.

Regarding the president’s transit issue, he said Washington respected Mr Chen’s decision not to transit through the US, and the two sides should look forward as “we still have a lot of businesses to do with [Mr Chen] in the next two years”.

In Beijing, Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said the US should stop selling arms to Taiwan.

“The US understands our view on Taiwan,” Mr Liu said at a regular briefing in Beijing. “We hope the US will put words in action by stopping arms sales to the island.”

Agence France-Presse, Bloomberg

It probably hasn’t been discussed because this nothing new. There has never been a point where US policy has stated the US would defend Taiwan unconditionally. The only change I see in that in the past 5-10 yrs the US has begun to state more clearly where it stands - dropping the so-called ’ strategic ambiguity '. That is a good thing.

Where have you been for the past 20 years?

This appears to be a warning to China that if it attacks Taiwan - even if Taiwan declares independence - America will have to fight. So it is in fact encouragement for the TI’ers. He should have said “remember that if you declare independence we will leave you out to dry” which is closer to the truth.

Elegua,

Find me an on the record comment (in front of Congress no less) in which a senior administration official said (literally) “independence means war”. Any time in the last 20 years would work for me.

Thanks.

[quote=“cctang”]Elegua,

Find me an on the record comment (in front of Congress no less) in which a senior administration official said (literally) “independence means war”. Any time in the last 20 years would work for me.

Thanks.[/quote]

I think the point Elegua is trying to make is that this has been a process of clarifying the position of the U.S. This appears to be the clearest indication of that long-term change to date. This in particular has NOT been said before, BUT the change has been there - it has just been rather slow and steady, but unmistakable - especially over the past 5 and a half years.

[quote=“ludahai”][quote=“cctang”]Elegua,

Find me an on the record comment (in front of Congress no less) in which a senior administration official said (literally) “independence means war”. Any time in the last 20 years would work for me.

Thanks.[/quote]

I think the point Elegua is trying to make is that this has been a process of clarifying the position of the U.S. This appears to be the clearest indication of that long-term change to date. This in particular has NOT been said before, BUT the change has been there - it has just been rather slow and steady, but unmistakable - especially over the past 5 and a half years.[/quote]

Slow and steady, but unmistakable - especially over the (past) next 10-15 years, {that Taiwan was always a part of China and we recognize China’s sovereignty}

You can kiss TI and ROT good bye. D-e-a-d, dead.

How’s that for US clarifying position in the future? :uhhuh:

Taiwanese can blame CSB for messing it up in a big way. But hey, he’s rich! :raspberry:

Yes, Zoellier did say that it would DRAG THE UNITED STATES INTO A WAR IT DOES NOT WANT. Emphasizing that it would have to defend Taiwan anyway.

Please back up your theories that the US will NOT defend Taiwan if China attacks with proof or evidence please! I mean its great that some people here may love spewing propoganda in a lame attempt to intimidate the people of Taiwan, but were not intimidated because theres no evidence.

Besides the TAIWAN CAUCUS IS THE SECOND LARGEST IN CONGRESS. So yes, the government in general hotly supports Taiwan.

Mao said that there would be war over Kinmen and Matsu unless they gave it back and the US sent the fleet in during the 50’s and guess what? It still a part of the ROC. No surprise there.

So if anything we need to see the PRC fulfill its promises of “uniting the Chinese Race!” and “bringing China back to its former glory”, not myths about the United States failing Taiwan, which in the past they have fulfilled greatly.

I don’t think there’s any doubt the US government “hotly supports” Taiwan if it wants to maintain its current state of autonomy from mainland China.

The question is whether the US government “hotly supports” Taiwan even as Chen Shui-bian “runs into a wall”. The answer to that question is already obvious to most.

Then please tell me why your compatriots continue to spread the propoganda that the US would not defend Taiwan? Don’t they want their future statements to seem credible?

What sort of wall? I’m sorry, most of the congressmen we’ve met over the years have staunchly supported the Taiwan Caucus. The Republicans say that they support Taiwan and its democracy, and the Democrats generally say (and have said), “Why are we trying to spread democracy in the Middle East when we should be defending an existing one!”

In addition, the China Caucus in Congress is mostly anti-China. Go figure.

[quote=“ShrimpCrackers”]
Then please tell me why your compatriots continue to spread the propoganda that the US would not defend Taiwan? Don’t they want their future statements to seem credible?[/quote]
Which of the following seems less credible to you?

… the United States will send its armed forces into harm’s way no matter what Taiwan does.

… the United States will send its armed forces into harm’s way in order to defend its ally, if mainland China launches an unprovoked, surprise invasion of Taiwan.

Everyone on this planet understands what’s going on. The fact that you and Chen Shui-bian are capable of going great distances in order to maintain your denial is irrelevant. Case in point: Chen Shui-bian responded to Zoellick’s points by claiming the DSoS was just “emotional”, and no one should take his comments seriously.

Don’t ask me, ask deputy secretary of state Zoellick exactly what kind of wall he meant, when he used the phrase while testifying in front of Congress.

I wonder if there is something different between the 50s and today… hmmm…

Kinmen was shelled beginning Aug. 23, 1958, continuously for three months and then every other day without fail until Jan. 1, 1979. Then the shelling stopped. Guess what else happened in 1979.

A side note for those interested, the PRC just this week declassified diplomatic notes covering the period including 1958.

Let us keep in mind this “other thing” that happened in 1979 as we examine ShrimpCracker’s next question:

What sort of wall? I’m sorry, most of the congressmen we’ve met over the years have staunchly supported the Taiwan Caucus. The Republicans say that they support Taiwan and its democracy, and the Democrats generally say (and have said), “Why are we trying to spread democracy in the Middle East when we should be defending an existing one!” [/quote]
During Zoellick’s hearing on Wednesday, Rep. Tom “If They Nuke Us, Bomb Mecca” Tancredo (R-CO), staunch supporter of Taiwan, brought up his discontent with the snubbing of Chen (consisting of repeating the TI/er talking points most assuredly fed him by the likes of ShrimpCrackers). After Zoellick explained Chen’s treatment by giving a laundry list of how Chen intends to push the envelope, “sand off the edge,” go back on his words for domestic politics, has other intentions than just a “transit” stop in the US, he ended with a remarkably explicit statement that, while the US wants to give Taiwan the respect it’s due in many areas that Taiwan has the opportunity to interact with the world (referring to non-official relations), the US is not going to change its 30-year-old policy on One China, and if Chen thinks he can change that, he is running into a wall.

Tancredo’s response:

“Well I think that that is, uh, I mean, I appreciate your response, I, we will look more carefully at exactly the wording of the statement, President Chen’s statement…” (referring to Chen’s Five No’s)


It doesn’t matter how staunchly Tancredo or Rohrbach or whoever else “supports” Taiwan, not even Congress is contemplating changing the One China policy. And that, my friends, is the bottom line; or as they say, The Wall.

Does that answer your question, ShrimpCrackers?

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195337,00.html

Ted Galen Carpenter of the Cato Institute criticizes the Bush administration for snubbing CSB on this most recent visit. But in the same article, his proposed solution is:

[quote]A better course would be to phase-out the defense commitment while showing proper respect for Taiwan

[quote=“cctang”]Elegua,

Find me an on the record comment (in front of Congress no less) in which a senior administration official said (literally) “independence means war”. Any time in the last 20 years would work for me.

Thanks.[/quote]

You’re missing the point - and most of American foreign policy related to Taiwan. As I said, what you’re seeing here is the un-winding of “strategic ambiguity”. If there ever was a point where TI did not mean war, TI would likely already exist in name. Currently, it does exist, in every form but name, today in the status quoe. There is no reason to change this from the US perspective, which is why the US now explicity opposes any unilateral change in the status quo. This is often latched upon by ‘憤青’ as the US keeping China down. Maybe, but unlikely. But to me a more relevant and pragmatic answer is that there is considerable sympathy for the Taiwanese situation in the US, and general tendence towards supporting self-determination and a pragmantic understanding that any moves towards conflict would have huge economic implications (and not necessarily the ones that the ‘憤青’ are thinking of).

As for not supporting TI - The US (no country) would ever put thier foreign policy in effective control of an outside entity by writing a blank check. Which is why for years the US has been telling Taiwan, if you go independent, you’re on your own.

As for reality, even if Taiwan declared independence and the PRC responded militarily, there is still a some form of intervention would occur. What that might be, is left to both sides imaginations. That in my mind is the risk with strategic ambiguity; that China might underestimate the willingness of the US to respond as TI’ers might overestimate it. I for one, support clarity.

I don’t think the PRC will underestimate the US response. It has been through this kind of thing with the US since the beginning of its existence. TI/ers, on the other hand, have a notorious lack of realism to their beliefs about the level of US support. It is of an unfathomable, fantastical sort of belief about US support. Now, whether that is just election tactics or whether CSB truly believes it, is equally dangerous. Possibly more dangerous if it is an election tactic, viewed in the long term.

The complete transcript of Zoellick’s remarks is at –
ait.org.tw/en/news/currentis … rgence.asp

I don’t think there are any surprises.

Of course Mr. Zoellick didn’t provide complete background information, but as we know –
When the representatives of the ROC accepted the surrender of Japanese troops in Taipei on Oct. 25, 1945, the military occupation of Taiwan began, hence

  • The announcement that Taiwan was annexed to the ROC on that date (so-called “Taiwan Retrocession Day”) is a war crime,
  • The implementation of mass naturalization procedures over the native Taiwanese populace thereby declaring them as “ROC citizens” in January 1946 is also a war crime,
  • Military conscription in Taiwan is a war crime.

In the post-war Senate-ratified San Francisco Peace Treaty, while Japan gave up the sovereignty of Taiwan , that sovereignty was not awarded to the ROC.

In summary, I think that if the State Dept. would tell the whole truth, the members of Congress would not be so critical of the Executive Branch’s “One China Policy.”

Yes & no. I think the both TI’ers and PRC have a schizophrenic view of the US. Both are colored by the political starting point, both are wrong. TI’ers get tripped up on thier racism and have trouble dealing with the fact that thier dreams of independence are frustrated by an intransient US. The PRC get tripped up by thier belief that the US is a spent power and and have trouble dealing with the fact that thier dreams of unifaction are frustrated by an intransient US. Until each side gets past pointing the finger at outsiders, and puts thier own house in order, then this situation will remain the status quo. Until such time the situation in the Taiwan straights will be the biggest threat to peace and prosperity in Asia.

EXACTOMUNDO!!!

Yes & no. I think the both TI’ers and PRC have a schizophrenic view of the US. Both are colored by the political starting point, both are wrong. TI’ers get tripped up on thier racism and have trouble dealing with the fact that thier dreams of independence are frustrated by an intransient US. The PRC get tripped up by thier belief that the US is a spent power and and have trouble dealing with the fact that thier dreams of unifaction are frustrated by an intransient US. Until each side gets past pointing the finger at outsiders, and puts thier own house in order, then this situation will remain the status quo. Until such time the situation in the Taiwan straights will be the biggest threat to peace and prosperity in Asia.[/quote]

I think you are talking about the populace on both sides, some of whom may indeed be schizo. But those who run the CCP government are fairly level headed. Can’t say the same about the DPP government and their supporters who actually have the possibility of driving policy when “their man” is in the hot seat. Just look at the difference in how foreign policy is conducted on the two sides.

Yes & no. I think the both TI’ers and PRC have a schizophrenic view of the US. Both are colored by the political starting point, both are wrong. TI’ers get tripped up on thier racism and have trouble dealing with the fact that thier dreams of independence are frustrated by an intransient US. The PRC get tripped up by thier belief that the US is a spent power and and have trouble dealing with the fact that thier dreams of unifaction are frustrated by an intransient US. Until each side gets past pointing the finger at outsiders, and puts thier own house in order, then this situation will remain the status quo. Until such time the situation in the Taiwan straights will be the biggest threat to peace and prosperity in Asia.[/quote]

I think you are talking about the populace on both sides, some of whom may indeed be schizo. But those who run the CCP government are fairly level headed. Can’t say the same about the DPP government and their supporters who actually have the possibility of driving policy when “their man” is in the hot seat. Just look at the difference in how foreign policy is conducted on the two sides.[/quote]

Well…I think the populace is driving foreign policy more and more in China. Things in China aren’t what they used to be and people are having thier say now. This is where the other part of what Zoellig said comes in…that the gov. is no longer based on its founding principles, and there is a bit of a vacuum. The PRC gov. also remembers what happened to the last regime that was labelled ’ unpatriotic’. This has in more recent times led to nationalist sentiment running amok - even from the CCP’s perspective. From a foreign policy or economic growth perspective do you think that the CCP wants anti-Japanese demonstrations in the street and destruction of Japanese private property? No, because Japan is a key investor and developer of the economy which is key to the CCPs lonmg-term survival. In the old days they could just quash it. Now they must be careful because this is a ‘patriotic’ issue.

The CCP are level headed because they practice realpolitik regarding thier own survival.