Beijing Urges Bush to Act to Forestall Taiwan Vote

NY Slimes ^ | 2-6-04 | JOSEPH KAHN

[tallhappy]

February 6, 2004

Beijing Urges Bush to Act to Forestall Taiwan Vote

By JOSEPH KAHN

BEIJING, Feb. 5 — China is putting pressure on the Bush administration to intervene more decisively to prevent Taiwan from holding a referendum on relations with the mainland, calling the planned vote a "dangerous provocation" that could lead to a confrontation.

Beijing sent a mission to Washington this week to urge the United States to take more concrete steps to rein in Taiwan's president, Chen Shui-bian, a Chinese Foreign Ministry official said. Mr. Chen has repeatedly played down statements from President Bush and the State Department expressing opposition to the referendum plan.

The Chinese effort reflects growing concern in Beijing that the Taiwan problem is becoming more acute, even though Mr. Chen recently softened the language of his proposed referendum and offered to resume talks with China if he wins re-election on March 20. Some officials and analysts are alarmed that Mr. Chen has pushed ahead with the plebiscite despite American opposition.

A Foreign Ministry official, who declined to be identified by name, said a request for more active intervention was conveyed to Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who visited Beijing late last week. The official said a further appeal to the United States to take firmer steps to derail the referendum was relayed by Chen Yunlin, the head of the Taiwan Affairs Office of China's State Council, or cabinet, who met State Department officials in Washington this week.

Asking the United States to play an intermediary role with Taiwan breaks a longstanding taboo in Beijing, where officials have often criticized Washington for meddling in relations between China and Taiwan. As such, it shows how limited China's options are for dealing with the matter, which some analysts here fear could lead to a military clash if its is not resolved soon.

"The United States has taken the right attitude toward the problem and realizes the motives of Chen Shui-bian," said Xu Bodong, an influential expert on Taiwan affairs in Beijing. "But American opposition has not been very firm and I'm afraid that this is leading to a serious misunderstanding in Taiwan."

The request puts the Bush administration in an awkward position. When Mr. Bush expressed his concern about Mr. Chen's referendum plan in December, during a visit to Washington by the Chinese prime minister, Wen Jiabao, he was criticized by neoconservatives and some pro-Taiwan members of Congress who maintain that the United States should support Taiwan against mainland China.

But the administration is determined to prevent a flare-up over Taiwan at a time when it is focused on Iraq. The administration is also depending heavily on China to help resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis. Just this week, China announced that it had arranged a new round of multilateral talks involving North Korea to be held in Beijing beginning later this month.

It is unclear whether the Bush administration is willing to take tougher steps against Mr. Chen if he continues to pursue the referendum plan, as appears likely. The pro-Taiwan lobby in Washington firmly opposes Chinese calls to curtail arms sales to Taiwan and limit contacts between American and Taiwanese officials. Mr. Bush has greatly increased arms sales and allowed a broader range of official contacts.

At issue is Mr. Chen's plan to place questions on the March presidential ballot addressing Taiwan's ties with China. Under the current wording, voters would decide whether to increase military spending if China does not remove missiles aimed at Taiwan. A second question would ask whether voters favor opening negotiations with Beijing.

While the questions seem relatively innocuous, China has argued that Mr. Chen is trying to set a precedent of putting issues of sovereignty to a popular vote, potentially paving the way for a formal vote on Taiwanese independence. China claims sovereignty over Taiwan and has vowed to wage war to prevent independence.

The Bush administration, reiterating longstanding policy, says it opposes unilateral steps to disrupt the status quo, and has backed China's view that a referendum of the sort Mr. Chen has proposed would upset it.

Administration officials have stuck to that position despite repeated appeals from Taiwan, which has said that the referendum is not intended to alter the status quo. Mr. Armitage reiterated the administration's concerns during his visit to China last week, even after Mr. Chen revised the wording.

Chinese military officials this week described the revised referendum as a major challenge to Chinese sovereignty, signaling that the Beijing leadership could respond harshly if Taiwan refuses to back down.

A prominent article in this week's issue of Outlook, a weekly current affairs magazine, carried essays by two senior scholars with military rank, both of whom made clear that the military would treat Taiwan's insistence on holding the referendum as a step toward independence.

"Chen Shui-bian's persistence in pursuing this provocative referendum shows that he is absolutely dead set in going down the road of independence," Col. Luo Yuan of the Chinese Academy of Military Sciences wrote. "He must not make a big miscalculation and mistake restraint for weakness."

Policy statements on sensitive topics like Taiwan cannot be published in major newspapers or magazines in China without high-level approval.

Yet Beijing is also eager to avoid steps that could end up strengthening Mr. Chen's bid for re-election and hurting his opponent, the Nationalist Party leader, Lien Chan. Mr. Lien says he favors improving relations with mainland China and has accused Mr. Chen of jeopardizing Taiwan's security by challenging Beijing to an unnecessary duel.

[tallhappy]

Bush has all ready conceded to Chinese Communist demands and appeased the Communist regime greatly at the time of Wen Jiabao's visit to the Whitehouse in early December.

But apparently that is not enough.

Will Bush appease again?

[thoughtomator]

Bush should say sorry, but I'm too busy trying to contain North Korean nuclear ambitions. Of course if our friends the Chinese can lend a hand with that, it will free up some of our attention to address their concerns.

[tallhappy]

Why would we want to address their concerns? Their concerns go againts our principles.

Bush already addressed these concerns and cause his credibility to be undermined in the eyes of many (myself included).

Bush is either for freedom and democracy or he's not.

[Quix]

Bush may well appease again. I hope not.

Appeasing bullys does not work.

Yet, how many wars do we need right now?

How would you handle it tallhappy?

[monkeywrench]

Bttt!!

[tallhappy]

Bush should not even respond to this but consistently and unequivocably say we stand with fellow free people and have freedom as our ultimate goal.

Communists will not start a war.

Bush should simply call the ChiComs and say we are going to recognize Taiwan and you will not start a war.

Then later he invites the Taiwanese president to the White House and they all say how they all have nothing but the best of intentions for China and hope to continue helping China build its economy via the partnerships that are inplace and bring an ever higher friendship, cooperation and standard of living to the Chinese people, Taiwanese people and US people.

Communists are not strong enough to start a war against the US let alone Taiwan if they wanted to.

And only the most extremist psychos would want to and there are few of them.

They are big at killing and torturing Christians who don't fight back or old ladies who do breathing exercises.

There is no way they will fight Taiwan or us and their whining to Bush is evidence of it. They want Bush to do their dirty work for them because they know their Wizard of Oz scam has been seen through by Taiwan.

[Quix]

They may not yet be quite strong enough.

However, up and down the line of command, the upper leaders are lied to.

They are told much more than in our military only what the leaders are perceived to want to hear.

There's some effort to get at the truth at the troops level but it's terribly anemic compared to the depths and breadths of the lies.

Beijing probably feels enormously potent economically as well as in numbers of potential combatants. And they are probably convinced that technologically they are but a few years off of being able to take on the USA.

But, if push comes to shove, THEY ARE NOT AT ALL BELOW HOLDING LA HOSTAGE. And, they are not at all above drawing Russia, Mexico, Iran et al into a conflagration with the USA.

We are perceived still, I'd wager--even after Iraq and Afghanistan--as much weaker than we perceive ourselves.

They have to consider the weakness they paid Billdo to inflict on us. Add in the depeletion of our troops and material in Afghanistan and Iraq . . . There are several reasons they could consider us challangable.

BTW, I've forgotten how many years you lived in China???

I think your scenario would be a greatly effective way to get a lot of my loved ones in Taipei as well as in Fujian killed post haste.

[Quix]

"Communists will not start a war."

And this underwhelming conviction came in a dream or what?

Sounds rather preposterous, to me.

[tallhappy]

Your move to this sort of low level response:

BTW, I've forgotten how many years you lived in China???

I think your scenario would be a greatly effective way to get a lot of my loved ones in Taipei as well as in Fujian killed post haste.

indicates full well what I am saying resonates and is clear.

If I were two respond at your level I would say: "Why don;t you just surrender to the communists now?" or some such.

Bush made a serious error after 911 in not addressing this issue immediately. I thought he might. He needed to say to the ChiComs that we no longer have the time energy or patience to indulge and plactate them as we have for the last several decades on this issue and that there is a bigger war to deal with and there childish antics are longer to continue.

We should have made port calls to Taiwan and Philippines and Singapore and Japan in the same time frame.

But it's been 55 years since Chiang fled and almost 110 years since Taiwan has been part of China. They never invaded or attacked so far. Only true psychos would attack now and there aren't enough in power.

All you keep saying is China will Nuke LA if we don't do exaclty what they want.

Who are you, Xiong GuangKai?

[Filibuster_60]

You continue to make huge assumptions about China's weakness and Taiwan's security. Yes, perhaps China's efforts to enlist Bush's support on Taiwan is indicative of their weakness, but the real question is: Why should Taiwan care what we tell them if they're so secure?

[EGPWS]

Bush is either for freedom and democracy or he's not.

No doubt, he is. So what is it that makes you so adamant in the idea that he isn't?

[tallhappy]

And this underwhelming conviction came in a dream or what?

No. From 50 + years of threats and barking but no war. From massive cooperation and contact between taiwan and China and the rest of Asia and the world. From Taiwan providing huge numbers of jobs to China which helps the ChiComs stay in power. From the overwhelming huge lack of any public support to attacking Taiwan in China for many many reasons. Chinese people are not all murderous psychpoaths as you think.

China said they would attack if taiwan declared independence, Lee Teng Hui called the Washington Post and London Times and pronounced taiwan is a sovereign independent nation. This was repeated over and over by Lee and all taiwanese politicans.

China didn't attack.

China said they'd attack if the taiwanese people chose wrong in 2000. Well, no attack yet.

They aren't going to. If they do, the regime is doomed.

[Filibuster_60]

So the Chicoms are suddenly too civilized to start a war that their subjects don't support? Who are you trying to fool with that kind of naivete?

Did cracking down on Falun Gong's 50 million members have support among the Chinese people? Did murdering those students and workers at Tiananmen in 1989 sit well with them?

[Quix]

Thanks.

I think I see your logic.

China likely did not attack in earlier decades as it had enough of a problem feeding itself.

I think you underestimate the sense of nationalism and energy of nationalism in China.

One group of Chinese once asked me if I thought Taiwanese compatriates wanted to reunify with China. I, somewhat unwisely, said that--sure--Taiwan compatriats wanted to get rid of their refrigerators, color TV's, Air conditioners, cars etc. to become like their Mainland relatives. There was nervous laughter.

Now, many to most city dwellers in Mainland China have most of those things plus.

I never said anything like

Chinese people are all murderous psychpoaths as you think.

But some key leaders have very selfish, arrogant, myopic etc. priorities and goals which could easily cost millions of lives. And they would feel no need to apologize for it just as they feel no need to apologize for Tienanmen now.

The vast masses of Chinese would prefer stability. But I think you still underestimate how many of them would at least tacitly support attacking Taiwan rather than even losing face, much less the "unity of the Motherland."

If you have never lived there long term, I can understand how you might not have picked up that cultural gestalt.

Lee Deng Huai's asserting the functional independant status of Taiwan is easy for the Beijing leaders to rationalize away. I don't know what their trip wire would be about Taiwan. They may not have it precisely defined though I bet they do. But there is one.

Beijing also knows that if Taiwan could vote, at least 51% would vote to become our 51st State. Given that Beijing has said all along that the masses of Taiwan citizens long to be reunited with the Motherland, any Taiwan referendum indicating otherwise is an unacceptable loss of face to the senior Beijing leaders. Quite intolerable.

And children and upstart provences in China are to be slapped down soundly at any impudence.

I think you also have a flawed memory to remember it as though Beijing said they'd attack if Taiwan chose wrong in 2,000. They didn't say it that way. Again, their word choices are important. They may have implied all kinds of things. But implications are something else.

They very rarely paint themselves into a corner as you imply.

Would the regime be doomed if they attacked? I doubt it. It would depend on many things.

IF we had devastated their major cities with nukes for some reason; if there were major quakes and drought here and there; if Taiwan had managed a considerably potent military response; If our CIA operatives etc. were causing a lot of trouble and enlisting a lot of yearning for democracy--perhaps so.

There are other scenarios when it is unlikely the regime would fall.

[tallhappy]

As I pointed out earlier, they are very brave at killing and torturing old ladies who meditate and Christians who simply want to worship God and evangelize His name.

Or mowing down unarmed civilians from tanks.

None of your examples even compares at all to an attack on Taiwan. The analogy doesn't hold up.

But, still, OK. Your point then is...? That we must do everything they say?

I'm not sure where you are going with it even if your point were accepted.

[Quix]

Ahhhhh

So, my responses are low level and yours are lofty though you haven't lived long term in China.

Interesting.

Of course I'm not at all in favor of any kind of surrender to Beijing.

Of course I'm for a firm strong tough, powerful response to China and Bush Sr blew it big time. Carter was a perverse traitorous bedmate. And W Bush could have already done a great deal better than he has in standing strong against Beijing.

However, I don't believe he has near as many options as you seem to think he does.

And, China bristles fiercely at any hint of being dictated to. That's a great way to start a conflagration.

Certainly we must meet China with strength from a position of strength in a strong way. How capable are we of doing that currently? I don't know. I'm skeptical you do.

I believe we could if we used the maglev platforms but I doubt the puppet masters would begin to authorize such unless it met with their plans to create a world government.

I was told that we have mapped Mainland China down to the inch--supposedly with such platforms. And, that we have nuke carrying ones that could go instantaneously to any spot in China. I was also told we don't have enough nukes for China alone. That's hard to believe but it was explained that China is too vast. Seems to me doing in their major cities would work. But, they do have a very decentralized bunch of stuff far and wide.

I doubt very, very seriously that you have the remotest clue as to how many psycho's might be left in senior levels of Beijing government.

And, pride does not necessarily equal psycho unless and until it does something genocidal merely for pride. And, given the cultural gestalts and priorities, it would not be a big leap at all for Beijing's pride to turn very deadly, indeed--just as it did in Tienanmen.

Were you incountry at that time? Did you FEEL those forces on the street and in the air FIRST HAND? I doubt it.

They have much more skill at playing nuking LA against us than we do at playing Taipei against them. Have you read Rudyard Kipling's exhortation about the west negotiating with Asia?

Sigh.

[tallhappy]

I never said anything like Chinese people are all murderous psychpoaths as you think.

Actually, this is exactly what you are saying.

You said that they'd hapily kill millions and millions and that Chinese people would support it -- all because in Taiwan and the US the names of some buildings were changed from institute to consulate or embassy.

If your claims are true, that would mean they are psychopathic murderous people.

You can't have it both ways.

Look, China isn't going to attack.

If they do, we are able to be ready for it and use it to end that horrible regime (worse than Hussein's) and help out to make China a truly great nation it could be.

You want to be sacred. OK. Be scared.

[tallhappy]

I believe we could if we used the maglev platforms but I doubt the puppet masters would begin to authorize such unless it met with their plans to create a world government.

Im sorry. I often forget you are completely insane.

[tallhappy]

Well, not "completely". We certainly have a lot of common ground, but, nothing personal, you are kooky and always have been.

[Quix]

No, I don't think the leaders are per se psychopaths--at least not in their normal operating modes. Sociopathic--perhaps some.

But I think you forget their value orientation.

To them, man is nothing more than--as Skinner put it--a rat, a pidgeon or a radish--or a rock for that matter.

Population to them is easily, philosophically expendable. Citizens are either assets depending--or liabilities to feed, house, clothe, keep mollified--depending.

From their reference frame, they are merely resource managers calculating as they best see fit fo the furtherence of the culture, the CHINESE NATION which includes, to them, CHINESE EVERYWHERE--regardless of citizenship.

I also think you tend to underestimate the CHUNG GUO REN against the barbarians mentality and how deeply, intensely visceral it is.

Am much more concerned that I might displease Father God than that the Chinese might kill me. Some were concerned that some Chinese might try to get a promotion by killing some of us westerners during Tienanmen when the government started stirring up anti-American stuff to blame the democracy movement on the USA. But so many Chinese were so protective, it was sweet.

BTW, it's not nice for you to put words in my fingers.

I said the leaders would willingly [not happily per se] kill off millions and millions for pride and ethnocentrc reasons, grandiose reasons.

I said the populace could easily support invading Taiwan. Different issues.

If your analysis of the Chinese problem is as clever and sharp as your analysis of me or of my posts, it's easy to see how flawed conclusions might occur.

And I remain very unconvinced about how ready we are to deal with China--militarily or otherwise.

The deepest/highest ranking spy in our inner intel circles in DC was Chinese. And that was BEFORE Billdo and Shrillery.