Bush says does not support independence for Taiwan -(Bush Shafts Taiwan, mine)

Reuters ^ | 10-26-02

[tallhappy]

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush said on Friday the United States would use its influence to ensure China and Taiwan settle their differences peacefully and promised to make it clear to Taipei that Washington does not support independence.

In a news conference with Chinese President Jiang Zemin, Bush said the United States stood by the "one China" policy, which acknowledges that Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of China.

"The 'one China' policy means that the issue ought to be resolved peacefully," Bush said.

"We've got influence with some in the region. We intend to make sure that the issue is resolved peacefully, and that includes making it clear that we do not support independence," Bush added.

Taiwan's president, Chen Shui-bian, has voiced support for a referendum on formal independence from China.

The move outraged Beijing, which views the island as a renegade province and a linchpin in Sino-U.S. relations.

Beijing had hoped Bush would repeat a pledge not to back independence for Taiwan, which China says must eventually be reunified with the mainland, by force if necessary.

Nationalists headed by Chiang Kai-shek fled to Taiwan in 1949 after losing a civil war to Mao Zedong's communists. Washington shifted diplomatic recognition to Beijing in 1979.

But the United States has offered Taiwan the biggest arms package in a decade and Bush has pledged to do "whatever it takes" to help the democratically governed island protect itself.

Bush did not repeat that pledge at Friday's news conference.

But during a visit to China earlier this year, he said, "When my country makes an agreement, we stick with it, and there is (something) called the Taiwan Relations Act and I honour that act, which says we will help Taiwan defend herself if provoked."

China says it is seriously concerned about the U.S. warming to Taiwan under Bush and has called on Washington to halt military contacts and arms sales to the island.

[Quix]

It wouldn't take too much for Beijing to invade. They can have some hair trigger sensibilities about such things. Once they decided they'd had their fill of democracy demonstrations, the crack down came swiftly.

[Quix]

No oil to speak of, if any.

Even their gas for cooking comes mostly from Saudi Arabia as liquified natural gas. I forget how much of their electricity is generated from Mid East oil etc. They have some nuclear power.

[Hostage]

You come very close to the core issues.

There is one important factor that seems to be ignored.
Everyone seems to be unaware that Taiwan is an enormous competitor to PRC in the business world. Taiwan's economy and output is still the largest in that part of the world. If the PRC can eliminate or control this competitor, they will dominate those markets.

The PRC is using capitalism to sustain its communist party leadership and to make advances in its military. Hong Kong has become a cash cow to Beijing. Taiwan is a competitor to HK. Therefore the PRC regime wants Taiwan under control or eliminated now.

Any reference to "renegade province" is a political smokescreen.

[Quix]

In some respects, they are IMPERIALISTIC by nature, by instinct . . . and by arrogance. They've not done a lot of such most of the time because they could not--it was too big a job managing what they had.

But they tried to consume Japan at one point. Many would love to do so again just to take revenge for WWII.

Don't forget Gengis Khan. He was not Han. But they still are proud of the fact that a close-to-Han sort of person consumed so much of the known world at the time.

I think the idea that Beijing or the Chinese nation is not Imperialistic is a naive one. . . . regardless of their protestations and pronouncements.

[concerned about politics]

I believe God will use Beijing as part of those bringing a humbling--even a humiliation--to the U.S.

Revelations? Russia will come down into Isreal, and China will come up from the south for the final battle. We won't be there to help. Isreal will be screwed.
We're long gone by then. We're the first to go. A huge quake takes us out of the picture. One huge comet hits the coast of California. Crrrrrrrack!
Once we- "the restrainer"- are taken out of the way, all hell breaks loose over there.

[demlosers]

Bush needs China's support on the Iraq resolution.

It took 41 post for someone to point out the obvious. He had to play a little diplomatic ball with Jiang. Bush has not changed a policy that's been in existance for thirty years. Yeah, maybe 1 China when the Commies are out of power.

[CWRWinger]

This was decided more than thirty years ago.

Thirty years of wrong policy doesn't make it right.

Once again, the USA, drunk with the influence of communism, stabs one of its best friends in the back.

[Psycho Francis]

Uncle Prescott

says "don't worry, be happy"

[steveegg]

Let's take a deep breath here. My read on this is that until Taiwan wants to be reunited with China, we won't let it happen. As that isn't likely so long as the ChiComs are in Beijing, we'll stay where we've been (with the exception of the later Klintoon years).

[BillCompton]

You seem to be forgetting about the invasion and brutal repression of Tibet, a separate nation and culture. Doesn't that meet your definition of imperialism?

Yeah. I thought about that. While this is an action that is Imperialistic, China doesn't seem to be trying to become an imperialist power, the way the Soviet Union did. They have disputes, like the Spratley (Sp?) Islands, and they have government run business' that have taken strategic positions (Panama Canal, Internet Fiber Cables (Worldcom?)). They also exercise enourmous economic hedgemony in Asia, but this is mostly informal. Informal in the sense that ethnic Chinese businessmen dominate business in many Asian countries, but are not directly involved with the Chinese government. Having said all this, I think it is likely that China sees Tibet as being a defensive buffer from India.

[elfman2]

I think they're split. My limited experience with several Taiwanese and Chinese roommates for a couple of years in collage supports the idea that the independence movement is weak. There's a stronger link with China than to capitalist/libertarian western ideals. The oldest and most politically active of the bunch expressed his hope to me that the US would not invade if China did take his little country. It wasn't that he didn't want immediate democracy and freedom, he just thought that the price of a land battle there would be too high, and figured China would settle into its own version of freedom and reform over time.

Nevertheless, it would probably never come to that. We could probably hold off a Chinese invasion with less than 10% of our Navy. They don't have the sea power or experience to pull it off.

[BillCompton]

Excellent Post.

Hong Kong is not a very good "political" example. The return of Hong Kong had to do with a lease expiration and nothing to do with political solutions, as is happening now.

"Political" in the sense that China negotiated the turn over and made assurances that it would not interfer. There is no question that China could have taken Hong Kong militarily. It negotiated to have business remain. There is not lease event with Taiwan, but they want to use the same economic model.

I said:Within 15 to 20 years, they will have a larger economy than ours.

You said: Speculation on your part? <snip>

Obviously speculation. It is an extension of growth rates. If the U.S. grows at the current rate and China grows at the current rate, the math predicts the China's economy becoming larger. That is a big if, of course. The thing is that China has so many people, if they can create an economy where they become productive, there is no question they would have a larger economy. Personal productivity will not even begin to aproach the U.S., but when you have five times the population, you don't have to.

On the other hand, there is no way that China will have as powerful a military as the U.S. We own most of the world's military technology and innovation. Russia is very good with aviation technology and they are making their best stuff (probably) available, but we will still enjoy a huge numerical superiority unless something unforseen happens to the the U.S. economy.

I think something is far mor likely to happen to China, than to the U.S. Politically, they do not have a style of government that can survive. Their are two kinds of power in China, business and government. The business power is a coastal phenominon. Government is a Bejing thing. Private property does not coexist well with communism.

Yep, history repeating itself. Pump up the economy and in a few years your enemy is powerful enough and wealthy enough to strike out. I wonder...will the "political solution" be Chamberlainian in manner?

I don't understand this conclusion. Market forces create states that feel like it is too expensive to go to war. If enough economic activity occurs, it becomes like a civil war, where there is no way to win. The bottom line is that imperilism is impractical in the modern world. The only two execptions are religious fanatics and communists. That's what makes China so interesting.

[tallhappy]

I have been dismayed to watch the Taiwanese themselves speak favorably of the one nation two systems theory

This is certainly untrue.

[elfman2]

" China's lust for Taiwan has nothing to do with pride and everything to do with strategic control of the Western Pacific Ocean."

Do you have any evidence of that? Polls, writings, editorials, intelligence, expert opinions etc…

[tallhappy]

Where have you been? This was decided more than thirty years ago.

No. Inaccurate. One China policy was never that we believe there is one China or do not support independence. It was only that we acknowledged that was the Chinese position.

This is follow up and even taking a new policy that Clinton initiated in 1998 a step further.

[tallhappy]

There is nothing new in GWB's position on this matter

Not true.

The only precedent was Bill Clinton's 1998 statements in Shanghai.

President Bush has gone built on and gone beyond what Clinton said in 1998.

[tallhappy]

I am disappointed that you did not understand this is the status quo.

This is smarmy doubletalk on your part. Don't play that game.

It is not our standce. It has never been stated by a US president.

Now, if this truly were our stance, then it should be changed and Bush could have changed it.

he's the President, I would hope you remember.

[tallhappy]

The business community in this country has been after the "massive" China market for nearly 200 years, along with the super cheap Chinese labor force.

Yes, but those in the know are aware that can be used to both our and Taiwan's advantage.

President Bush yesterday gave in the the appeasement school which either does not understand this or does not want that.

[BillCompton]

He might could have had slightly more courage but I doubt it. He doesn't need China up in arms against him at this time--especially wanting them to abstain and not veto attacking Iraq.

Yeah. How about this for a Clancy scenario. We attack Iraq, N. Korea attacks South and China attacks Tawain. And just for good measure, Canada attacks Vermont. The last part of that would make it almost worth it.

[dalereed]

"It would likely precipitate a war with a nuclear power."

We should forget Iraq and concentrate on China now as they are the top of the pile as far as being "axis of evil" and take them down before they have the ability to totally destroy us which I believe is their intention.

If it comes to a nuke war, so be it.