Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

China delivers blunt warning to U.S.
UPI ^

Posted on 07/16/2004 6:36:27 AM PDT by milestogo

China delivers blunt warning to U.S.

WASHINGTON, (UPI) July 13 , 2004 -

The United States must cease its interference with Chinese internal affairs over the question of Taiwanese independence or face a serious deterioration of U.S.-China relations, China warned Tuesday.

In an official statement delivered to the press at the Embassy of the Republic of China, embassy spokesman Sun Weide spoke of China's grave concern regarding recent U.S. actions on the Taiwan question.

He urged the United States to halt all arms sales to the country, terminate military links, end official exchanges with Taiwanese authorities, and stop supporting Taiwan's efforts to join international organizations that require statehood.

Such actions, Sun said, violated the one-China policy to which U.S. leaders pledged adherence in three joint communiqués signed by the two countries in 1979 and 1982.

In the final communiqué, the United States reiterated its official recognition that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China. The United States also stated the intention to gradually reduce arms sales to Taiwan over a period of time, leading to a final resolution.

Twenty-four years have passed, said Sun. It is time for the U.S. to honor its commitments.

If those commitments are not honored, he said, ... the reactions will not be in favor of the bilateral relations. ... It will affect our cooperation and China-U.S. relations as well.

Recent visits to China by U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney were successful, he said, and on the whole, China-U.S relations have been steadily progressing.

However, it was made clear to Rice during her visit, Sun reported, that the importance of the Taiwan issue in China's relationship with the U.S. cannot be overemphasized.

The Taiwan question bears directly on China's sovereignty and territorial integrity, he said. We don't need any foreign countries to play any roles in their regards.

Sun rejected Cheney's suggestion during his April visit that there was a link between Chinese conduct over Hong Kong and the Taiwan question, saying China would not accept such interference from the U.S. government.

A senior administration official told the Washington Post in April that Cheney's message to China's leaders had been that Beijing's efforts to stifle democracy in Hong Kong might further kindle Taiwan's moves towards formal independence.

There is not, said Sun, any basis for American government officials to accuse China of eroding freedoms in Hong Kong.

Expressing Beijing's dissatisfaction over recent comments and actions by U.S. government officials and congressmen, he said democracy is expanding in Hong Kong, and people are enjoying freedoms more than anytime in the past.

China, he said, welcomes international dialogue on human rights on a basis of mutual respect. The recent breakdown in such dialogue, he said, is the sole responsibility of the United States.

He pointed to the anti-China resolution tabled by the United States at the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva this April. The defeat of the resolution, the 11th such defeat since 1990, shows the international community recognizes Chinese progress in this area, he continued.

The fact that Taiwan is part of China is also a fact recognized by the international community, said Sun.

A State Department spokesman declined to comment on Tuesday's statement, pointing to the April testimony of James E. Kelly, assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, in which he outlined to the House International Relations Committee U.S. official policy on Taiwan.

The United States is committed, said Kelly, to the one-China policy based on the three joint communiqués. However, it will not support any unilateral move that alters Taiwan's status, and should China threaten force or coercion against Taiwan, the United States would use its capacity to resist that threat.

In addition, the U.S. government will continue to sell Taiwan defensive military equipment in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act, introduced in 1979.

China strongly opposes this act as a violation of the one-China principle and the three joint communiqués, Sun noted at the press briefing.

However, if Beijing fulfills its obligations in adopting a military position that supports peaceful approaches to Taiwan, the defensive requirements will also change accordingly, according to Kelly's testimony.

China currently has short-range ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan, which have been increasing by 50 to 75 missiles per year, Kelly stated.

Taiwan views this threat as a major obstacle to reunification. Taiwanese President Chen Shui-Bian said in his May inaugural speech:

If (China) continues to threaten Taiwan with military force, ... this will only serve to drive the hearts of the Taiwanese people further away and widen the divide in the Strait.

The chairman of Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council, Joseph Wu, said in a June statement that under such military pressure, Taiwan must reinforce its own defenses.

The Taiwanese position has been to call for peaceful and amicable negotiations on the issue of independence. Chen stated in his May speech that the Taiwanese government would not exclude any possibility as long as the people consented, and that the country understood China's insistence on reunification based on historical and ethnic concerns. However, he also called for a reciprocal understanding on the part of Beijing of the Taiwanese people's democratic concerns.

Sun, however, cited the refusal of the Taiwanese authorities to recognize the one-China principle as the main obstacle to reunification, which, he said, is the common wish of all Chinese people, including our compatriots in Taiwan. China will never tolerate Taiwanese independence, he added. We know that there is only one China in the world.

Such statements further confirm that Beijing's patience is beginning to wear thin, Ted Galen Carpenter, a leading foreign policy analyst, told United Press International Tuesday.

Beijing is becoming increasingly frustrated that the United States does not regard this matter as urgent, said Carpenter, vice president of defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute in Washington.

In fact, he said, We've reached the point where the status quo is unsustainable for more than a few years.

The United States is caught in the middle of an increasingly tense situation, said Carpenter, and is currently heading for a nasty confrontation.

We're likely to have a major crisis within the next few years, he said.

If United States wants to avoid the line of fire, according to Carpenter, we should make clear to Taiwan that although we support negotiations, we will not defend Taiwan in the event of a military conflict.

We don't want to fight a war with China over Taiwan, he concluded, and that may be the bottom line.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-193 next last
To: milestogo

This from the Hidustan Times on 10/22
http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/221001/dlame81.asp

China assisting us in war against US:
Taliban commander K J M Varma
(Islamabad, October 22)

Taliban Commander-in-Chief Jalaluddin Haqqani has claimed that the militia
was "in touch" with China, which was assisting them in the war against US.
Before leaving for Afghanistan after holding talks with Pakistani officials
here, Haqqani, who is also the Minister for Frontier Regions, told
reporters "China is still assisting Taliban in the war against the United
States".


121 posted on 07/16/2004 8:36:50 PM PDT by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scenic Sounds

I always noticed them. And I also always noticed the hypocritical people who surround them. Pinging you to come along might prompt you to ask if you might be one of them. Think about it.


122 posted on 07/16/2004 9:01:55 PM PDT by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Shryke

Read Jeff Head's "Dragon Fury" before writing another word on this matter.


123 posted on 07/16/2004 10:03:03 PM PDT by Eagle Eye (Coming to you live from HESCO City...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

China is posturing in case JFK wins...they know he will fold like a deck of cards.


124 posted on 07/16/2004 10:09:15 PM PDT by Bob J (Rightalk.com...coming soon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: malakhi

You got it. We can make Red China explode at a time of our choosing. We can also free Hong Kong, too.


125 posted on 07/16/2004 10:16:28 PM PDT by 185JHP ( "Ich kann nicht anders.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: milestogo

They're bluffing. They cannot afford to lose access to our markets - especially with the social problems that they have now.


126 posted on 07/16/2004 10:25:29 PM PDT by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: milestogo

That deal was signed 20+ years ago what has China done on thier part? other than fight us on every front?


127 posted on 07/16/2004 10:30:51 PM PDT by KingNo155
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quix

Without doubt, I do NOT question the resolve of the Chinese. However, we faced a similar, if not more dedicated foe, 53 years ago. We won. And, significantly, we were the first to defeat them (on their home turf).


128 posted on 07/16/2004 10:32:07 PM PDT by Shryke (Never retreat. Never explain. Get it done and let them howl.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Quix

You really think a man could fight in a foriegn land after being shipped in an airtight cargo container? How can it be?


129 posted on 07/16/2004 10:37:59 PM PDT by KingNo155
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: uncbob
I believe the United States refused to help Chaing KaiShek (butchered spelling) defeat, or even fight Mao's Communists after the second World War (1947).

Blame who you want, but the slaughter of some 30-50 million "counter revolutionaries" that ensued came as a result of our failure to assist.

Nixon would not have had to open trade relations with China had we helped keep Nationalist China "Nationalist".

130 posted on 07/16/2004 10:45:36 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (No one is safe, and only the comfortably deluded think they are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: aruanan; Grampa Dave; ALOHA RONNIE; tallhappy; onyx; potlatch; ntnychik; MeekOneGOP; Smartass; ...
Hey, PRC, just admit right up front that the current government in Taiwan is older than the PRC by a couple of decades, that the PRC has no legal claim to Taiwan, but that you lust after it and after one of the world's greatest art collections housed there, protected against the early Chinese communists' societal purge against anything "reactionary", ie, old. And then we'll tell you to put a sock in it or be prepared to take some ICBMs that'll wipe Beijing (and all your top military installations) off the map should you try to invade Taiwan.

Taiwan has been controlled from the mainland for thirteen years in three millenia: 1887-1895, 1945-1949.

The party of Sun Yat-sen predates that of Mouse Dung.

W said we would do what it takes to defend Taiwan.

And the W, as we know, doesn't stand for waffle.

The beetles of Beijing know this, too, as they are only effective in crushing unarmed student democracy advocates and harmless Christians, Falun Gong women, Tibetan Buddhist nuns.

They have caught their meat in Hong Kong--there is a hard knot of resistance to their oppression--do they dare Strike Hard?

After all, with the Olympics, et cetera, there is much at stake.

If they want to trade us Los Angeles for Beijing--hey, to be rid of Hollywood? Don't push it, Hu & Jiang, don't push it.

131 posted on 07/16/2004 11:07:01 PM PDT by PhilDragoo (Hitlery: das Butch von Buchenvald)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: carl in alaska; Jeff Head; SAMWolf; Light Speed
Their latest statement is primarily posturing by Beijing. They're trying to intimidate us into backing away from Taiwan to a certain extent. Then they could use our actions as leverage to intimidate Taiwan. The best course of action is to continue selling defensive weapons to Taiwan and tell Beijing to pound sand if they don't like it. But it does look like we need to strengthen Taiwan's defensive capability so we don't need to assist Taiwan in the event of war with China.

Unrestricted Warfare, by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui (Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House, February 1999)

They tested us with the EP-3C incident, and W didn't back down.

They grew stronger with Clinton & Clinton's treason (Loral-Hughes missile guidance, Wen Ho Lee nuclear warhead tapes, etc.) even using Charlie Yah Lin Trie to deliver the astonishing Dear President letter in April 1996 causing the removal of two carrier groups from the Strait.

Clinton starved Taiwan for the barest defensive weaponry; W has opened the tap.

They tried that "incinerate L.A." song and dance on Condi and she told them "it wasn't helpful": flashing of gang signs in diploworld.

Their standard propaganda is that it's all "internal matter"--the world is their internal matter, for they aspire to the hegemony they accuse us of pursuing.

Note that ASEAN (Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar (Burma), the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam) recently warned Taiwan they would side with China in any conflict--

But of course they would--and the Philippines just bent over for terrorists in Iraq).

Chinese banks are not stable; Chinese population is fragmented and unhappy.

Yahoo cooperates with the Chinese Communist internet censorship--but NRO recently reported a Chinese journalist in Baghdad using foreign reporting to give hope to widespread democratic desire at home.

W will stay the course; Komrade Jean-Fraude Kommie will be buried in November, and Jiang will need more opium to maintain.

132 posted on 07/16/2004 11:22:30 PM PDT by PhilDragoo (Hitlery: das Butch von Buchenvald)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo

The Chinese/Clinton deals are gonna come back to haunt us for a long time.


133 posted on 07/16/2004 11:52:13 PM PDT by SAMWolf (The dentist said my wisdom teeth were retarded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Quix
And diplomatic/military fencing is much more ingrained at an art level in China than anywhere in the West.

Hardly. Their fencing in this regard is crude and incompetent. They have their own brand of fanaticism, but they use that to compensate for a lack of finesse. Both the Russians and the French have traditionally been better at this than the Chinese as opponents go.

134 posted on 07/16/2004 11:57:05 PM PDT by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Quix
I think a LOT of underestimating China goes on even at levels and sections of the West who should know better.

How much time have you actually spent in China? Beijing? You think you understand the nature of the beast, but do you really?

China is a geopolitical problem for sure, but it isn't the direct menace to us that you make it out to be.

135 posted on 07/17/2004 12:00:28 AM PDT by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Quix
And peanut head was horrid. He insisted on waking Chiang Kai Sheck up at 0300 to tell him we were cutting relations. Arrogant!

Chiang Kai-shek was dead in 1978 when this happened.

You mean Chiang Ching-kuo.

136 posted on 07/17/2004 12:16:20 AM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Shryke
What do you think China can throw at us that would be effective?

You're making it too easy......

Treasury bonds, lots of them.

137 posted on 07/17/2004 12:25:14 AM PDT by Colorado Buckeye (It's the culture stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: philetus
Thanks for 121.
138 posted on 07/17/2004 12:33:28 AM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy

Sorry. You're right.


139 posted on 07/17/2004 4:07:35 AM PDT by Quix (PRAYER WARRIORS, DO YOUR STUFF! LIVES, SOULS AND NATIONS DEPEND ON IT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: tortoise; All

No time in Beijing though I knew someone who's wife was secretary to the Central Committee.

2 years in a Provincial capital somewhat . . . significantly involved in Taiwan issues.

I don't think Mao, Deng, et al REALLY VERY WELL KNEW CHINA. CHINA IS SOOOOO VAST AND COMPLEX. Anyone pretending to comprehensively KNOW and understand China is likely delluding themselves.

I do contend that I understand SOMETHING about the leadership's psychology and dynamics and SOMETHING about cultural priorities.

My major error was thinking that Tienanmen would not go down the way it did even though my better sources said it would (I was incountry at the time).

I still contend that China is MUCH MORE of a direct menace to our welfare than any officials seem to admit, so far. God will prevent her from destroying us but I believe HE WILL USE HER TO DISCIPLINE THE USA SEVERELY.

And during that occupation period, the ruthlessness of some of the military leadership in the USA will be horribly awesome. Prayer alone will moderate the severity.

I'm used to being in a minority position--especially this (relatively) far ahead of events.

BTW, back in 1970, at the 3 Star joint Command COMMCEN in Taipei, an individual with access to the more highly classified--I think it was J2 or J6--forget--the active Command Center above the ComCen--this individual asserted forcefully that while we had China mapped to the inch, even if we devoted 100% of our nuclear arsenal to China, and even if each nuke hit it's target precisely--there WOULD STILL BE ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF THE COUNTRY RELATIVELY UNSCATHED with plenty of operability left.

Of course, we likely will have to split our nukes between Russia and China as well as Iran, Syria, No. Korea, Cuba etc. And, I think our arsenal is markedly decreased from what it was in 1970.

This was from an expert in 1970. What do I know. But I trusted this person a lot.


140 posted on 07/17/2004 4:20:18 AM PDT by Quix (PRAYER WARRIORS, DO YOUR STUFF! LIVES, SOULS AND NATIONS DEPEND ON IT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-193 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson