Back to General

US POLICY: NO DEMOCRACY 4 U!

Historical capture recovered from the Wayback Machine · captured 2004-01-07 · 1 of 3 pages survived · 21 posts
This thread had 3 pages; 2 pages were never captured by the Wayback Machine — some replies are missing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/09/international/asia/09PREX.html?ex=1071550800


INTERERSTING READ...IF U DONT SUB TO NYT...(ITS FREE), THEN HERE IS SOME MEAT 4 U!


THE SITUATION IS DELICATE....STILL, WE ARE ASKING THESE PPLE TO GIVE UP THEIR VOICE AND VOTE....

SELF DETERMINATION AND TAIWAN DO NOT GO 2GETHER.

**************************************

U.S. Asks Taiwan to Avoid a Vote Provoking China
By DAVID E. SANGER

Published: December 9, 2003


ASHINGTON, Dec. 8 — The Bush administration issued an unusually strong warning to Taiwan on Monday not to hold a referendum that could fuel the island's independence movement. The move apparently was an effort to quell a growing political storm in Asia before it requires deeper American intervention.

The warning came just a day before President Bush is to meet China's new prime minister, Wen Jiabao, at the White House.

All three parties — China, Taiwan and the United States — are engaged in a delicate dance that involves a potent mix of international diplomacy and domestic politics. Taiwan's president is up for re-election next year, the Bush administration is relying heavily on Chinese help to defuse the North Korean nuclear crisis and stem the growing trade deficit, and China is trying to leverage its growing economic and military power for advantage against Taiwan.

Administration officials insisted that there was no change in the fundamental one-China policy, and the State Department in recent weeks had said it opposed steps that could lead to independence for Taiwan.

But Monday's warning was usually blunt, and officials went further by saying they were abandoning three decades of deliberate ambiguity about how far either China or Taiwan could go in their constant maneuverings for the upper hand on the issue of reunification or independence.

"What you're seeing here is the dropping of the ambiguity for both sides because we cannot sort of imply to the Taiwan side that we're sort of agnostic towards moves toward Taiwan independence," a senior administration official told reporters on Monday. "But at the same time, we've got to make it clear to the Chinese that this is not a green light for you to contemplate the use of force or coercion against Taiwan."

The statements on Monday will be broadly interpreted as a warning to Taiwan that Washington opposes not only any declaration of independence, but even political discussion or a referendum on the subject. That is bound to anger pro-Taiwan members of Congress and neo-conservatives who had been celebrating Mr. Bush's recent declaration that spreading democracy is the core mission of his foreign policy.

Last month, according to Taiwanese and American officials, the White House quietly sent the director of Asian affairs on the National Security Council, James Moriarty, to deliver a face-to-face caution to Taiwan's president, Chen Shui-bian, about his plans to hold a referendum in March calling for China to withdraw ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan.

Mr. Chen, who is facing re-election, has insisted that the referendum would not center on independence. But clearly the missile question is a rough substitute for mention of that word, and Beijing has expressed alarm about the precedent of holding a vote on any delicate political topic.

Taiwanese officials said they had not been notified of any change in the American handling of the tensions between Taiwan and China.

Mr. Bush is expected to deliver a warning against any Chinese contemplation of coercion of Taiwan to Mr. Wen on Tuesday morning. The Chinese prime minister is expected to discuss the range of Chinese-American relations, from North Korea to weapons proliferation to Washington's demand that China let its currency float to reduce the its huge trade surplus with the United States.

Since arriving in the United States on Sunday, Mr. Wen has reflected a predictably hard line on Taiwan. Yet he has been more muted than the Chinese military officers who warned last week that Taiwan was facing an "abyss of war" and that China would accept any economic penalty to prevent Taiwan from using the referendum to advance the independence movement.

Such declarations leave Mr. Bush in a delicate position on an issue he, like his predecessors, has tried to finesse. His recent calls for support of democracies around the world, especially the Middle East, leave him in a poor position to condemn freely held voting on Taiwan, a place where authoritarianism has given way to a burgeoning democracy.




Post edited by Aria Giovanni.pZ at 12/8/2003 10:55:28 PM

------------------------------------
YOUR FUTURE SECRETARY OF CAPITALS ASKS YOU TO
VOTE FOR DOMINUS!!!!
US policy toward China has angered me for several years now. We want their dollars and they want our dollars, and we're willing to ignore principles like human rights and democracy. We're willing to give them Taiwan in order to keep their business so US corporations can profit from Chinese slave labor. Many of their factories are in gross violation of China's quite relaxed worker's rights laws.

I read somewhere that Wal-Mart alone accounts for 10% of China's export revenue worldwide. Wal-Mart. That's one single company.

I hate the two-faced way we behave. Cuba is run by a tyrannical dictator who is quick to violate human rights under the guise of Communism, and we embargo them and have all kinds of controls and restrictions on them, regardless of any economic benefit free trade may spur. China is run by a tyrannical dictator who is quick to violate human rights under the guise of Communism, and we grant them Most Favored Nation status and bend over backwards to avoid offending them so that American corporations can gain the economic benefit of outsourcing overseas.

China is not our friend.
If I ever read "Clinton sold out to China" again I'm going to laugh my ass off. This is the saddest thing I've seen a American President do in a long time. This is worse than Iran Contra even. Bush has told a nation *NOT* to fight for freedom.

AMAZING.
Post edited by --DestinO-- at 12/9/2003 3:40:13 PM
Originally posted by: --DestinO--
........Bush has told a nation *NOT* to fight for freedom.

AMAZING.


i know, isnt that funny? in a sick way.

AND ALL THEY WANT IS A REFERENDUM, NOT A "FIGHT"....

THEY ARE GOING ABOUT IT IN THE DEMOCRATICALLY CORRECT WAY.

BUT BUSH INHERITED THIS FROM THE LAST 30 YEARS...

WHICH INCLUDES HIS FATHER'S
10 YEARS AS CIA DIRECTOR
8 YEARS AS VP
4 YEARS AS PRESIDENT
--------------------
22 TOTAL, OUT OF 30

SO HE CANNOT EVEN HANG ON TO THE ARGUMENT OF "I INHERITED IT", WHICH HE **TRULY** DID!

IN ANY CASE....WE SOLD OUR SOULS NOT ONLY FOR THE $$ BUT ALSO TO AVOID CONFRONTATION WITH A NUCLEAR NATION WITH 1 BILLION PEOPLE.

WE DEAL, WE MUST LIVE WITH OUR CHOICES!

WHERE WILL IT TAKE US?


------------------------------------
YOUR FUTURE SECRETARY OF CAPITALS ASKS YOU TO
VOTE FOR DOMINUS!!!!
I too, am stunned and disgusted.

China has all sorts of nasty weaponry pointed at that island yet they expect those folks to like them and want to be a part of them? And then President Bush tells Taiwan basically, no...live within the communist shadow and deal with it??? WTF is up with that?

I got a sneaky suspicion he's only doing this to butter up the Chinese communist leadership in case we have to go spank North Korea and frankly, that urks me. When communist China stuck their nose into our business last time we kicked their ass back up north. It can be done again. This buttering up bullshit needs to cease.

Taiwan wants their independence, then we ought to help them achieve it.

DoMiNuS
Originally posted by: --DestinO--
If I ever read "Clinton sold out to China" again I'm going to laugh my ass off. This is the saddest thing I've seen a American President do in a long time. This is worse than Iran Contra even. Bush has told a nation *NOT* to fight for freedom.

AMAZING.




pop quiz genius:

1) Who instituted the "one China" policy?

2) who said the following:

"We don’t support, independence for Taiwan, or two Chinas, or one Taiwan and one China. And we don’t believe that Taiwan should be a member in any organization for which statehood is a requirement."


Post edited by pheirce at 12/9/2003 5:29:14 PM
Originally posted by: Aria Giovanni.pZ


WHICH INCLUDES HIS FATHER'S
10 YEARS AS CIA DIRECTOR
8 YEARS AS VP
4 YEARS AS PRESIDENT
--------------------
22 TOTAL, OUT OF 30





You conspiracy nuts crack me up. You and hilary clinton should write a bok or something.
Originally posted by: pheirce
Originally posted by: Aria Giovanni.pZ


WHICH INCLUDES HIS FATHER'S
10 YEARS AS CIA DIRECTOR
8 YEARS AS VP
4 YEARS AS PRESIDENT
--------------------
22 TOTAL, OUT OF 30





You conspiracy nuts crack me up. You and hilary clinton should write a bok or something.


wait, phierce, did I lie?

plz, kindly point out what is wrong with what u quoted from my original post.

thats no conspiracy...anyways.....for what?

i double checked, and I made a numerical error there,

one year in the CIA, not 10, but thats no conpsiracy, its only work experience, isnt it?
Post edited by Aria Giovanni.pZ at 12/9/2003 5:55:03 PM

------------------------------------
YOUR FUTURE SECRETARY OF CAPITALS ASKS YOU TO
VOTE FOR DOMINUS!!!!
Originally posted by: Aria Giovanni.pZ
Originally posted by: pheirce
Originally posted by: Aria Giovanni.pZ


WHICH INCLUDES HIS FATHER'S
10 YEARS AS CIA DIRECTOR
8 YEARS AS VP
4 YEARS AS PRESIDENT
--------------------
22 TOTAL, OUT OF 30





You conspiracy nuts crack me up. You and hilary clinton should write a bok or something.


wait, phierce, did I lie?

plz, kindly point out what is wrong with what u quoted from my original post.

thats no conspiracy...anyways.....for what? those are facts, arent they?


Well, despite the fact that you're wrong in the facts you present (George HW Bush was Director of the CIA for one year between 1976-1977, not 10 years), even if you were accurate, your facts would be irrelevant.

The one-China policy is one that is set by the POTUS, but you seem to think that between 1972-1980, that it would have been the director of the CIA that directed this policy. Then, between 1980-1988, it would be the Vice-President who would be the one to reaffirm this policy. Then, between 1988-1992, it finally falls on the shoulders of the POTUS.

I'm guessing between 1992-2000, the policy is the responsiblity of former presidents?

-pheirce
Originally posted by: pheirce
Originally posted by: Aria Giovanni.pZ
Originally posted by: pheirce
Originally posted by: Aria Giovanni.pZ


WHICH INCLUDES HIS FATHER'S
10 YEARS AS CIA DIRECTOR
8 YEARS AS VP
4 YEARS AS PRESIDENT
--------------------
22 TOTAL, OUT OF 30





You conspiracy nuts crack me up. You and hilary clinton should write a bok or something.


wait, phierce, did I lie?

plz, kindly point out what is wrong with what u quoted from my original post.

thats no conspiracy...anyways.....for what? those are facts, arent they?


Well, despite the fact that you're wrong in the facts you present (George HW Bush was Director of the CIA for one year between 1976-1977, not 10 years), even if you were accurate, your facts would be irrelevant.

The one-China policy is one that is set by the POTUS, but you seem to think that between 1972-1980, that it would have been the director of the CIA that directed this policy. Then, between 1980-1988, it would be the Vice-President who would be the one to reaffirm this policy. Then, between 1988-1992, it finally falls on the shoulders of the POTUS.

I'm guessing between 1992-2000, the policy is the responsiblity of former presidents?

-pheirce


yes one year at the head of the CIA, not ten...

was One China Policy adopted as US policy under Kennedy or Nixon?

I didnt mean to imply Bush senior set the one china policy.

He certainly had to work with it, literally, an deal with matters of intelligence relating to it as the CIA director.

from china's point of view, taiwan has been "culturally" chinese for centuries, if not, millenia.

so the question is:

if Tawain wants to be its own Nation and its majority vote for it? where will SHOULD we stand on this issue?

Also, what about Chechnia?

It seems that it is easier to help "bring democracy" to a whole country, rather than a segment of it.

Of course, a segment of a country going to war for its independence (not that it will happen in Tawain) is not an international conflict as defined by generally accepted International Law, yet....

the USA was born out of a segment of country wanting to secede...and France helped us then....

are we forgetiing about our roots?

can we afford to remember?

reality vs. theory
------------------------------------
YOUR FUTURE SECRETARY OF CAPITALS ASKS YOU TO
VOTE FOR DOMINUS!!!!
Why should the US have any say in this matter?

Have you forgotten about our Treaty with them? Jimmy Carter, a Dem, wanted to abolish this treaty, but a republican took him to the Supreme Court on it and won.

So why is Bush trying to avoid this matter? Hes committed to Iraq and Afghanistan right now. And thanks to our wonderful Clinton, who has been quoted to say, "I loathe the military," we are no longer able to fight a protracted two front war with such a colossal enemy.

You know, for the same people who bash Bush for being Hawkish and going to war with Iraq and against the Taliban, you guys sure do seem to want to just go all out militarily on this particular case.
Originally posted by: Diablo45
Why should the US have any say in this matter?

Have you forgotten about our Treaty with them? Jimmy Carter, a Dem, wanted to abolish this treaty, but a republican took him to the Supreme Court on it and won.

So why is Bush trying to avoid this matter? Hes committed to Iraq and Afghanistan right now. And thanks to our wonderful Clinton, who has been quoted to say, "I loathe the military," we are no longer able to fight a protracted two front war with such a colossal enemy.

You know, for the same people who bash Bush for being Hawkish and going to war with Iraq and against the Taliban, you guys sure do seem to want to just go all out militarily on this particular case.


I DUNNO WHAT THE WISEST ANSWER IS....BUT WAR IS CHINA IS NOT PART OF IT...

I SURE AM GLAD IM NOT IN THE WHITE HOUSE...I AND 250 MILLION OTHER PPL IN THE US *ALONE*
------------------------------------
YOUR FUTURE SECRETARY OF CAPITALS ASKS YOU TO
VOTE FOR DOMINUS!!!!
So you want to support a Taiwanese Democracy, but at the same time, you'd refuse to honor the treaty we have with Taiwan to defend them in case of attack?

Of course you don't have an answer. All you want to do is make a sorry attempt at making the president look bad. And you do it by essentially going back on all your previous statements that are against the war in Iraq.

I'm sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. You either support Taiwanese government and face the very real possibility of a very large war, or, you convince Taiwanese leaders to hold off on the referendum in order to prevent such a catastrophe.
Post edited by Diablo45 at 12/10/2003 1:28:18 AM
There are several facts here that bear pointing out.

Taiwan was once part of China. When the communist revolution occurred, the last stronghold of the old regime was Taiwan, and the revolutionary forces lacked the sea power to launch an invasion. Taiwan considers itself a government in exile (The Island's official name is the Republic of China). The Mainland chinese regime considers it to be a last stronghold of opposition to their revolution.

Under International law, any territory has the right to declare independance and sovereignty on the basis of a plebiscite. Most nations in the world have to some degree recognized Taiwan's statehood. They have separate trade agreements with it, they have alliances, treaties amd consulates. The U.S. has all of these things and more, yet political cowardice from a long succession of presidents from BOTH parties has exacerbated and lentghened this dispute decades beyond what was necessary.

There is a reason CHina threatens to invade Taiwan every time they make a move that could increase their independace. The reason is because no one has strpped up to the plate to make the necessary political moves to back Taiwan.

A formal American declaration that it was firmly committed to it's treaties with Taiwan and would willingly recognize any declared independence would leave the Chinese with no alternative but to back down. They would bluster and sabre-rattle for a few months, but there could be no question of any attack. The only reason the Taiwanese are under threat from the mainland is because their so-called allies keep turning a blind eye to Chinese agression.

China would be bankrupt and starving to death in ONE YEAR if it's major trading partners were lost, and they know it. They would NEVER jeoparize that with some Military foolishness. If the U.S and other countries (mine included, as their 2nd largest trader) were more willing to stand up for right, and worry less about political expediency, this wouldn't even be an issue anymore.

China is NOT North Korea. They are not governed by a sociopathic megalomaniac who believes he has some divine destiny to rule the region. North Korea's human rights record makes China's look like Sweden's. The DPRK has modern day concentration camps, and over 3 million of its citizens in "reeducation" prisons.

China, on the other hand, is governed by an elite for whom their wealth and power is their driving force. The best place to pull on China to get results is their purse strings.

Standing up to them would make the situation SAFER, not more dangerous. Taiwan isn't about to give up it's desire for independance. It has ALWAYS been a people who felt distinct and separate from the Mainland. Taiwan will, one day (maybe sooner than anyone imagines) declare it's independance. When that happens, a lack of political and moral support from nations like ours will make a destabilizing war in the region MORE likely, not less so.

I didn't start off this post seeking to bash Bush specifically, but I am very much afraid he has promised China Tawian in exchange for cooperation on North Korea. If so, he has sold out his Nation and its credibility.

There was an interesting footnot in a report on the news tonight. GWB in 1999 called any new partnership with China irresponsible and reprehensible. He also capaigned saying that normalizing relations with China without massive reforms was not in the cards. He repeatedly bashed Clinton for cozying up too much to Beijing. According to Daniel Pearl, China was originally going to be named in the "Axis of Evil". Today he publicly referred to China as his "Diplomatic Partners" in the War on Terror as he welcomed the Premier to the White House.

I REALLY hope there is a backroom plan we don't know about to safeguard the rights and security of Taiwan. If not, well, I guess we have found out what the NEXT treaty he withdraws from is going to be.
Post edited by [Judge]Bravo_1 at 12/10/2003 3:24:14 AM


Quoth the Bunny: "Forum Whore".


Couldnt have said it any better Bravo.
Originally posted by: [Judge]Bravo_1

A formal American declaration that it was firmly committed to it's treaties with Taiwan and would willingly recognize any declared independence would leave the Chinese with no alternative but to back down. They would bluster and sabre-rattle for a few months, but there could be no question of any attack. The only reason the Taiwanese are under threat from the mainland is because their so-called allies keep turning a blind eye to Chinese agression.


That's a nice theory, but you don't know that. It's one thing for someone who has no say in the matter and no real education in international politics to sit back and say "we should fully support taiwan independence because mainland china would do nothing about it." Your decision has no meat, therefore no consequence. It's quite a different thing for the person in charge to make that decision kowing full well that the Chinese might get pissed off enough to go to war.

The irony, is that if the US took the step to fully support Taiwan indepenence, the liberals who are bitching about the "one china" policy would sit back in their comforters and bitch and moan about how stupid this president was to change 30+ years of American policy and risk open war with an enemy that outnumbers us 5 to 1.

I wonder where these liberals stand on the subject of the South succeeding from the Union?!

Another reality that you glossed over, is that the Chinese Communist Party is continuing it's reforms to a more democratic society. They seem hell-bent on staying in power and if that means that they abandon communist/socialist economic policies, then they are willing to do it. It's certainly a point of concern when an ideologue abandons his ideology in order to maintain power. That alone should tell you that if anything came along that would threaten their power, they might not react rationally.

I have an idea. Since the US is pretty stretched right now in it's military fronts with rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as a continuation in the war on terror, how about the Canadians step up and rattle that sword that you are so convinced will make the Chinese fold?

-pheirce
Originally posted by: pheirce

That's a nice theory, but you don't know that. It's one thing for someone who has no say in the matter and no real education in international politics to sit back and say "we should fully support taiwan independence because mainland china would do nothing about it." Your decision has no meat, therefore no consequence. It's quite a different thing for the person in charge to make that decision kowing full well that the Chinese might get pissed off enough to go to war.

--That is completely ridiculous. It's not MY theory, it's what people who LIVE THERE and KNOW are saying in the major SE Asian newspapers these days. As for MY experience with the region, I had immediate family living in HOng Kong from 1995 through 1999 and spent 3 months in Hong Kong and 2 on the Mainland during that time. Both of those trips showed me just how toothless the threats against Taiwan really are. The Chinese cannot even feed their people without grain imports from Canada and the U.S, they rely almost completely on North America for exports, and I have seen first hand how little stomach the average Chinese citizen has for atacking Taiwan. They see it as a prestige project for the government, and attach little significance to it. The ASEAN conference, which is the S.E. Asian equivalent of the OAS has repeatedly called on the U.S. to MAINTAIN it's policy of commitment to the protection of Taiwan and to allowing the Island to determine its own course without interference form EITHER side of the Pacific. THAT'S the policy shift that has now taken place, and THAT's what I am complaining about. The status quo should not have been changed. America has NEVER openly opposed Taiwan's independence before. The "One China" policy simnply boils down to the concept that the U.S will not consider Taiwan a sovereign state without a formal declaration of independence. It has NEVER been a policy of opposing Taiwan independence until now.

The irony, is that if the US took the step to fully support Taiwan indepenence, the liberals who are bitching about the "one china" policy would sit back in their comforters and bitch and moan about how stupid this president was to change 30+ years of American policy and risk open war with an enemy that outnumbers us 5 to 1.

--I should have predicted that somehow this would become all about liberals with you people. The fact is we were happy with the way things have been for 30 years...it's BUSH that has suddely changed it and now irresponsibly placed Taiwan at risk from the mainland. He has also proven that he is a complete Hypocryte. Apparently Democracy is only OK if it's convenient for America that you have it. This self=righteous, ignorant lunatic Bush is, in my opinion, the biggest threat to Asian Stability since Pol Pot.

I wonder where these liberals stand on the subject of the South succeeding from the Union?!

--Who the hell CARES? They weren't even a true democracy. Women and non-whites were not allowed to vote. However, That's so irrelevant to this topic you should be ashamed for bringing it up. It's typical of a weak argument. You remind me of my Ex who, when mad because I forgot to get gas, would then remind me that 3 years ago I got a parking ticket. Utterly asinine.

Another reality that you glossed over, is that the Chinese Communist Party is continuing it's reforms to a more democratic society. They seem hell-bent on staying in power and if that means that they abandon communist/socialist economic policies, then they are willing to do it. It's certainly a point of concern when an ideologue abandons his ideology in order to maintain power. That alone should tell you that if anything came along that would threaten their power, they might not react rationally.

--This is priceless...in one sentence you are copmletely backing down from the entire Conservative platform on China. In the next, you talk about the great and devious threat their power-hunger poses. Which IS it? They are no closer to democracy now than they were in 1975. Religious groups are persecuted, people are Jailed without charge or trial, and it is illegal to posess a satellite dish. Their elections are shams, and their media is state-controlled. China has neither the resources nor the economic stability for the regime to survive a cross-strait war if it means embargos and loss of all trade. THAT's why it was essential to stay the course instead of green-lighting their practice of intimidation. ou wan't to know what China is really like? Why don't you ask Mojo7. He can tell you some stories about this new "edemocratized" China.

I have an idea. Since the US is pretty stretched right now in it's military fronts with rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as a continuation in the war on terror, how about the Canadians step up and rattle that sword that you are so convinced will make the Chinese fold?

--You aren't listening. It's TRADE that will terrify China...FAR more than military threats. We are their second-largest trading partner, and you can bet your ass that we'd slap sactions on them the second they got out of line. Canada ALREADY HAS the position that Taiwan independence is Taiwan's right to choose. We do NOT recognize the so-called "One China" policy. Also, WE DON'T HAVE A DEFENSE TREATY WITH TAIWAN...like the one your man Bush may have just made a lot more likely to be used. If you're stretched so thin, then perhaps you've been exaggerating your success in this so-called War on Terror. Odd that no one in the Bush administration seems to think that you're too overstretched to take on North Korea at the drop of a hat. GWB has betrayed 30 years of good relations with Taiwan as well as the principles of Freedom and Democracy that he CLAIMS to be trying to bring to all who desire it. COnservatives bitch about Clinton handing over a few microchips to China...and then applaud when THEIR guy basically hands over the keys to one of the largest free-market economies in the entire Pacific Rim. All this in exchange for China turning a deaf ear to North Korea's pleas for support. He's completely flip-flopped on his entire Sino-American platform, and contributed to the destabilization of region that ishome to a third of the world's population.

-pheirce


By the way. It is self-serving and ignorant to fail to recognize (or even be aware, it seems) that there are thousands of Canaadian and other NATO troops working WITH you in Afghanistan. Your government just this week awarded 30 Canadian snipers and soldiers the Silver Star for their work protecting your special forces troops while under fire.

Can I absolutely guarantee that China wouldn't, for some insane reason, abandon all logic and invade Taiwan even WITH American Forces committed to protecting it? No. But I can sure as hell guarantee that they're even MORE likely to do it WITHOUT American opposition. GWB may have delayed...perhaps even permanently...the right of Taiwan's millions of citizens and its democratically elected government to choose their own destiny without fear of annihilation by a bitter neighbor. America cannot abdicate its commitments at a whim when they become inconvenient. Otherwise, your Nation's promises are meaningless. To paraphrase Ben Franklin, "They who would encourage others to give up essential Liberty to achieve a little temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I want to apoligize if I offend you with this response. This is a matter that hits very close to home for me, and I am so shocked by this sudden policy shift that I am at a loss to see the rationale. All I know is today was a very black day for human rights, peace and freedom in Asia, and the messenger was the one man who is supposed to be the very champion of those exact values in the world...the leader of the most powerful free nation in history.
Post edited by [Judge]Bravo_1 at 12/10/2003 8:55:45 AM


Quoth the Bunny: "Forum Whore".


Originally posted by: [Judge]Bravo_1
Originally posted by: pheirce

That's a nice theory, but you don't know that. It's one thing for someone who has no say in the matter and no real education in international politics to sit back and say "we should fully support taiwan independence because mainland china would do nothing about it." Your decision has no meat, therefore no consequence. It's quite a different thing for the person in charge to make that decision kowing full well that the Chinese might get pissed off enough to go to war.

That is completely ridiculous. It's not MY theory, it's what people who LIVE THERE and KNOW are saying in the major SE Asian newspapers these days. As for MY experience with the region, I had immediate family living in HOng Kong from 1995 through 1999 and spent 3 months in Hong Kong and 2 on the Mainland during that time. Both of those trips showed me just how toothless the threats against Taiwan really are. The Chinese cannot even feed their people without grain imports from Canada and the U.S, they rely almost completely on North America for exports, and I have seen first hand how little stomach the average Chinese citizen has for atacking Taiwan. They see it as a prestige project for the government, and attach little significance to it. The ASEAN conference, which is the S.E. Asian equivalent of the OAS has repeatedly called on the U.S. to MAINTAIN it's policy of commitment to the protection of Taiwan and to allowing the Island to determine its own course without interference form EITHER side of the Pacific. THAT'S the policy shift that has now taken place, and THAT's what I am complaining about. The status quo should not have been changed. America has NEVER openly opposed Taiwan's independence before. The "One China" policy simnply boils down to the concept that the U.S will not consider Taiwan a sovereign state without a formal declaration of independence. It has NEVER been a policy of opposing Taiwan independence until now.

The irony, is that if the US took the step to fully support Taiwan indepenence, the liberals who are bitching about the "one china" policy would sit back in their comforters and bitch and moan about how stupid this president was to change 30+ years of American policy and risk open war with an enemy that outnumbers us 5 to 1.

I should have predicted that somehow this would become all about liberals with you people. The fact is we were happy with the way things have been for 30 years...it's BUSH that has suddely changed it and now irresponsibly placed Taiwan at risk from the mainland. He has also proven that he is a complete Hypocryte. Apparently Democracy is only OK if it's convenient for America that you have it. This self=righteous, ignorant lunatic Bush is, in my opinion, the biggest threat to Asian Stability since Pol Pot.

I wonder where these liberals stand on the subject of the South succeeding from the Union?!

Who the hell CARES? They weren't even a true democracy. Women and non-whites were not allowed to vote. However, That's so irrelevant to this topic you should be ashamed for bringing it up. It's typical of a weak argument. You remind me of my Ex who, when mad because I forgot to get gas, would then remind me that 3 years ago I got a parking ticket. Utterly asinine.

Another reality that you glossed over, is that the Chinese Communist Party is continuing it's reforms to a more democratic society. They seem hell-bent on staying in power and if that means that they abandon communist/socialist economic policies, then they are willing to do it. It's certainly a point of concern when an ideologue abandons his ideology in order to maintain power. That alone should tell you that if anything came along that would threaten their power, they might not react rationally.

This is priceless...in one sentence you are copmletely backing down from the entire Conservative platform on China. In the next, you talk about the great and devious threat their power-hunger poses. Which IS it? They are no closer to democracy now than they were in 1975. Religious groups are persecuted, people are Jailed without charge or trial, and it is illegal to posess a satellite dish. Their elections are shams, and their media is state-controlled. China has neither the resources nor the economic stability for the regime to survive a cross-strait war if it means embargos and loss of all trade. THAT's why it was essential to stay the course instead of green-lighting their practice of intimidation. ou wan't to know what China is really like? Why don't you ask Mojo7. He can tell you some stories about this new "edemocratized" China.

I have an idea. Since the US is pretty stretched right now in it's military fronts with rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as a continuation in the war on terror, how about the Canadians step up and rattle that sword that you are so convinced will make the Chinese fold?

Again, you aren't listening. It's TRADE that will terrify CHina...FAR more than military threats. We are their Second-largest trading partner, and you can bet your ass that we'd slap sactions on them the second they got out of line. Canada ALREADY HAS the position that Taiwan independence is Taiwan's right to choose. We do NOT recognize the so-called "One China" policy. Also, WE DON OT HAVE A DEFENSE TRATY WITH TAIWAN...like the one your man Bush may have just made a lot more likely to be used. If you're stretched so thin, then perhaps you've been exaggerating your success in this so-called War on Terror. Odd that no one in the Bush administration seems to think that you're too overstretched to take on North Korea at the drop of a hat. GWB has betrayed 30 years of good relations with Taiwan as well as the principles of Freedom and Democracy that he CLAIMS to be trying to bring to all who desire it. COnservatives bitch about Clinton handing over a few microchips to China...and then applaud when THEIR guy basically hands over the keys to one of the largest free-market economies in the entire Pacific Rim. All this in exchange for China turning a deaf ear to North Korea's pleas for support. He's completely flip-flopped on his entire Sino-American platform, and contributed to the destabilization of region that ishome to a third of the world's population.

-pheirce


By the way. It is self-serving and ignorant to fail to recognize (or even be aware, it seems) that there are thousands of Canaadian and other NATO troops working WITH you in Afghanistan. Your government just this week awarded 30 Canadian snipers and soldiers the Silver Star for their work protecting your special forces troops while under fire.

As for Iraq, well bully for you. In 5 years when that war is over, we'll throw you a big party.

"Ohh....woe is us...we are so burdened with our duty to our corporate paymast.....err....I mean the Free World."


*sigh*, now you resort to making stuff up. there are many, many, many things wrong (factually and logically) with the book you posted, but let me hit just on the hilights since I've got actual work to do today:

a) Bush did not change the one China policy. He reiterated the policy that Nixon stated in 1972. To prove this point, I quoted someone to Destino above. I quote it here again and you tell me who you think said it (hint, it wasn't a Bush):

"We don’t support, independence for Taiwan, or two Chinas, or one Taiwan and one China. And we don’t believe that Taiwan should be a member in any organization for which statehood is a requirement."

b) I'm certain I'm sexier than your ex, but that doesn't matter. I brought up the south succeeding from the Union to illustrate that you are not consitent. You painted this picture of one part of a country suceeding from the whole country to form a new country as if it was some noble and glamourous thing. I brought up an instance where your view would not be consistent. Let me use a different instance more close to your home and let me use your words:

"Quebec was once part of Canada. When the imperialist monarchy conquered the north, the last stronghold of the oppressed French peoples was Quebec, and the revolutionary forces lacked the military power to launch an invasion. Quebec considers itself a government in exile. The british Canadian regime considers it to be a last stronghold of opposition to their revolution.

"Under International law, any territory has the right to declare independance and sovereignty on the basis of a plebiscite."

c) China is much closer to democracy than they were in 1975 (or even 1972 when the one China policy was first stated). They have made big steps in economic freedoms because they saw what happened to the Soviet Union and realized that socialism wasn't going to cut it. Of course, some people who believe in socialism might think that China's move toward a more capitalistic society (which by defintion bestows more freedoms on people) is a step back instead of a step forward.

d) If Canada is so important to Chinese/Taiwan relations, then why doesn't your government do something about the injustice that you see happeneing? My guess is because your government is filled with a bunch of weak-kneed pussies who would never be willing to do anything that might rock the boat. Just lay down and bitch and moan about how America takes you for granted like you always do and we will continue to patronize you while not taking you seriously.

-pheirce
Originally posted by: Diablo45
So you want to support a Taiwanese Democracy, but at the same time, you'd refuse to honor the treaty we have with Taiwan to defend them in case of attack?

1. Of course you don't have an answer.
2. All you want to do is make a sorry attempt at making the president look bad.
3. And you do it by essentially going back on all your previous statements that are against the war in Iraq..........


1. hmmm, no.
2. hmmm....look bad? why? not this president alone, I think the whole One-China policy was quite crooked from the gte go....I said GWB inherited it. Did you miss that part? And he is staying the course on it, while ignoring the Taiwan commitment....like all did b4 him. GWB is part of the crowd.
3. wha??? my position on Iraq: Only way we should involve UN is if we are ceratain Saddy has WMD...if not, then just go at it alone and let the UN censor us...

u c, i believe in "asking" for help only when u know ur gonna get the help, if any hint u will be denied exists, then fuck the help. I dont like rejection and i dont like authority (they r related, why would you care when some1 NOT in authority rejects you?...but my psyschosis is another mattera)

What is wrong with the USA? (read carefully)
We inconsistently claim "High Moral Grounds". Applying force to get something done, that is not the problem.
Our problem is the incosnistency of resons we give in one scenarion vs. the other.

How do we fix it?
Dont take the "democracy for all" excuse...just be real, dammit, say "we dont like Chavez cuz he thratens hemispheric stability" or "We have a mad man holding the largest known oil reserves in the world" or "It would be nice to have Taiwan decide its onw fate on the ballot box, but our national interests superseds Tawianese desires"

I hope i came across clear, if I can summarize it:
Bullshit ur way thorugh only if you can be consistent., IF NOT, THEN DONT GIVE A DAMN OR EXPLANATIONS TO ANY1.

I JUST HATE FLAKINESS.
------------------------------------
YOUR FUTURE SECRETARY OF CAPITALS ASKS YOU TO
VOTE FOR DOMINUS!!!!
Well, Phierce, your poor grasp of the history of Quebec aside, they certianly DO have the right to secede by plebiscite...and our Supreme Court has said so. They are a democracy, and entitled to take democratically approved action. However, less than 1 in 14 actually WANT to as of last year.

You can criticize our hadling of CHina all you want. In some cases I would join you...but we do, I feel, do a great deal towards spreadin gour ideals of freedom and justice to them. However that (like much of the rest) is not the point of this question.

YOu seem to say that this isn't a change in policy...that's simply not true. Even the Administration says it is...well, Ari Fleischer called it a "clarification". GWB has made repeated statements that America is committed to helping those who would have freedom and democracy to attain it. He has made numerous statements that China was not a suitable partner in any form. 3 years ago, they forced down and held prisoner the crew of one of your military planes and stole it's equipment. America has a signed treaty declaring their military commitment to the safety of Taiwan against invasion from China. Clinton (who said your little quote, for those who didn't know) was referring to a Taiwan without a formal declaration of independence. As long as Taiwan did not declare independence, he was committed to the One-China policy as long as Taiwan was not a sovereign State. However it was a very carelss way to word it. A short time later, after he realized just how BAD that position WAS, he ALSO said that America would accept a United Nations formal recognition of Taiwan if it declared independence (which almost happened in the 80's, but China threatened war, thus the treaty with the U.S.). Now, Bush has told the people of Taiwan that they can't have his support for exercising their democratic rights because he needs CHINA's support for clamping down on North Korea. This is a direct contradiction of everything he has been saying for 2 years about the value and un-stemmable tide of freedom and democracy in the world.

Taiwan is not trying to seced from China, really. They are not (for all intents and purposes) even PART of China, because the Revolutionists never conquered it. China is in fact seeking to effectively annex Taiwan by roadblocking their way to recogition as a Sate. China sees reunification oas a matter fo Pride. Taiwan sees independence as a matter of survival. America has now apparently decided Chinese prestige is more important than freedom. It's no wonder that people are skeptical when they see the tanks rolling down their streets and the guy driving says "We're Americans and we're here to give you freedom". Examples like this send the message that if it was more convenient to take the freedom away, they'd just as soon do that, too.

Bush has made an extremely serious foreign policy mistake, and I fear the entire region will pay for it.
Post edited by [Judge]Bravo_1 at 12/10/2003 9:49:11 AM


Quoth the Bunny: "Forum Whore".


A Right Wing extremist is defending the Chinese?

I am in Oz.

21 posts recovered