Skip to comments.Feinstein insists U.S. not bound to protect Taiwan
Posted on 04/21/2006 3:18:06 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
In remarks certain to please visiting Chinese President Hu Jintao, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Thursday told a gathering of Chinese-American business and cultural leaders in San Francisco that the United States has no obligation to defend Taiwan if it provokes China into a military confrontation.
Feinstein's comments came on a day when Hu and President Bush sat down together in Washington to discuss a range of issues -- including Taiwan, which China regards as the No. 1 issue in U.S.-China relations. Before his first U.S. visit this week, Hu urged Taiwanese leaders to resume talks with China and called actions toward independence a threat to the region.
``It is important to point out a common misconception -- nowhere does the TRA explicitly require the U.S. to go to war with the mainland over Taiwan,'' Feinstein said, referring to the Taiwan Relations Act, at the annual conference of the Committee of 100 in San Francisco. The group helps foster U.S.-China relations.
The act, passed by the U.S. Congress in 1979, is the foundation of U.S.-Taiwan relations. Some supporters of Taiwan assume the United States is legally bound to defend the island, but the United States' obligation to Taiwan has increasingly become a point of contention as Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian has promoted Taiwan independence. His provocations have irked the Bush administration and caused tensions in U.S.-Taiwan relations.
China claims Taiwan as part of its territory. Since 1979, the United States has acknowledged China's ``one-China'' policy and recognizes Beijing as the legitimate government of all China.
Feinstein isn't the first U.S. official to assert that the United States isn't legally bound to defend Taiwan, but her comments are certain to cause ripples. Bush had pledged in 2001 that the ``U.S. will do whatever it takes to defend Taiwan.''
(Excerpt) Read more at kentucky.com ...
Soon to be re-elected Empress Senator DiChiFi has spoken,, and the Ca GOP whimpers about its current state of impotency as it does next to nothing to field a candidate.
Define "provokes" or is it a "living and breathing" definition? ;-)
One Communist to another...
coming from someone who won't even defend our own borders. I'm not surprised.
Your right, the republicans in california do not even try to field a good candidate to upset the Di fi, and one needs to remember a good bulk of her husbands wealth is with his investments in Communist China..
Feinstein should be bound and gagged.
Doesn't her husband have lots of $$ tied up in deals in the PRC?
Talk about undermining our position in Asia! But then again, if memory serves, Feinstein is heavily invested/influenced by Red China, no?
Ah, with "friends" like Diane, who needs enemas.
No doubt she felt this way about Vietnam too.
Or Japan or California.
I gag every time this fool Feinstein opens her mouth.
Richard Blum, Di's hubby, has done very well over the years, China deals notwithstanding. He sits on the Ca Board of Regents as well.
Then I hope that the Chinese there field and fund someone and then rouse up the people to oust her.
Red meat for Michael Savage.
What the hell is wrong with the USA? Why are both Republicans and Democrats doing the kowtow to the President of china like we are some kind of vassal state?
Sure is different that what I was taught all the way back to grade school.
How much of her opinion is influenced by her husband's foreign business deals?
Bush insists US not bound to protect San Francisco.
Maybe his agents have oodles of compromising photos of them or perhaps they are bought and paid for. Some might just envy China's form of government.
Red meat for Michael Savage.
Not today, he's off again.. encore broadcast .. again. ;-)
Yes. Her hubby is a big wheeler dealer with the ChiComs, AND is a major funder of the Brookings Institute.
Does CA have any credible candidates for that race? The GOP has, for years, neglected any candidate development efforts. Mehlman is changing that, but it will take years.
And Feinstein is the Foreign Minister of what country?? Oh, yeah ... I forgot! She's pitching for Foreign Minister of the Territorio Norteno!
"The United States policy is one China," Bush said after a 40-minute Oval Office meeting with mainland Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.
Although the U.S. didn't have any obligation to defend Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, either -- but that didn't stop us from putting the lives of U.S. military personnel at risk to restore one royal family to a throne in Kuwait and keep another one on a throne in Saudi Arabia.
Someone please wake me up when any of this starts to make sense.
You'd think this would cost her some votes considering the large Chinese population in SF and the rest of CA.
Thanks for keeping that infinitive together, but this is the first I've heard of anything of the kind. I need some more definitive authority before I belive that the President has signed on to the "One China" policy.
Credible .. Yes, recognizable .. No.
The Cubans GOP farm team is stronger in candidates than the Ca GOP. Of course, they are in Florida.. which doesn't help much either.
>>A lady with whom I work said that yesterday Bush declared that Taiwan was a part of China. I was shocked. I thought we had pledged our support to the Taiwanese against Chinese aggression.<<
I believe you are both correct. We subscribe to the One China policy that includes Taiwan but we have the Taiwan Relations act where we condition continuing diplomatic relations with China on them not attacking China.
Here is what looks like the key part
>>(3) to make clear that the United States decision to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means;
(4) to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States;
(5) to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character; and
(6) to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.<<
(4) to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States;<<
Well, the Taiwan relations act does contain this threat but apparently we interpret this as saying it doesn't apply if Taiwan provokes the attack.
Well, I learned something today. Apologies originalbuckeye. But I must say I'm not happy with this compromise. "Grave concern" my ass.
Taiwan is a US Territory. The US may elect to defend it or to sell it or grant it statehood.
What a filthy slime bag of a hag!
Why are ALL DemocRAT women either ugly, stupid or traitorous?
I understand her husband has business interests there?
Of course, that has no impact on her policy, I'm sure.
"Exists". It's the same with Israel.
She rode to national fame on the basis of an assassination. Before Moscone was killed, she couldn't get elected mayor. Came very very close to being recalled a few years after her "ascension." I never understood how either she or Boxer had statewide appeal, but then I forgot that whole "Year of the Woman crap they foisted on us that got them entrenched.
Translation: The US is not obligated to defend Taiwan if it in any way depreciates Richard Blum's (her hubby) investments in China.
No conflict of interest ... "oh hubby! Their attacking your masters again... shall I issue the appropriate propaganda?" Sheesh! Frankenfeinstein in top form.
What are you willing to do?
Will you volunteer for our military and spend the next few years in Taiwan?
Would you be willing to spend a whole lot more in taxes to pay other people to do it?
Or will you just type stuff on a message board?
My perrenial question: why is she (and her ilk) walking around?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.