Posted on 07/16/2004 6:36:27 AM PDT by milestogo
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.
I suppose it depends on definitions.
Finesse? I wouldn't characterize them as overly sophisticated in finesse unless and until they make it a priority. IF they make it a priority in a given discrete area and context, they can be as full of finesse as anyone. Usually, they lean much more on heavy-handed power and arrogant demands.
They are much more prone to the thuggery they treat their fellow citizens with.
They certainly see themselves as leaders of THE MIDDLE KINGDOM etc. They see themselves with a certain kind of manifest destiny carving out their due with rising economic and military clout. With their masses and rising clout, they expect that nothing can stand in their way. They will tend to behave accordingly--somewhat like the elephant or gorilla who will sit wherever it wants and do whatever it wants.
In some respects, their insights on the ACTUAL options vs THEIR PERCEIVED options--their insights are lacking and not always near as accurate as they think they are. But, that doesn't usually slow them down. They will adjust accordingly and still bluster and posture and manipulate as though the new realities were part of their plans all along. And, they have amazing capacities to pull such off more or less successfully in their desired directions.
I know the following point will likely be hotly contested. But I don't often perceive them to even bluster much at all beyond what they will back up with all their political and military might. They don't just make noise for noise sake. They carefully craft every public word. And then their ENORMOUS PRIDE and arrogance and allergies to loss of face kick in fiercely. Even if they get themselves in a binds with their pronouncements, they will ruthlessly behave as though it was part of their plan all along and move heaven and earth as much as they can to come out king of the hill anyway--usually, amazingly successfully.
I'd say, that in the last 34 years, I've seen them achieve many more of their goals over the West than the West has even imagined to achieve over them. In a lot of ways, I think they are the Pied Piper and the West are idiot children following China wherever China leads us by the nose.
They are still, imho, much better at THE ART OF WAR than we are. They still practice it much more at an art level than we do.
I do think that there are many in China who are very hostile to the Party and totalitarianism. And, many are still quite sympathetic to the USA. How . . . much . . . and how dangerously they would behave in China in our behalf during a war remains to be seen. They are not overly suicidal, typically. But they will give up their lives for a valid, heart-felt cause in a flash.
And, they are rather fiercely Nationalistic to a point.
OF COURSE this is all imho. Ignore freely at will. Time will tell.
Who said the containers had to be air tight?
And, there are ways to even manage that with technology not all that advanced or sophisticated.
I used it mostly as an illustration.
For one, they could enter the containers the last hours of the trip.
In some contexts, the containers could be largely omitted and they just come streaming across the gangplank in a beachhead already established by earlier container hidden troops.
I'm mostly saying that folks who contend that China has no way to get masses of troops across the pacific is conveniently forgetting their creativity, inventiveness and
SEEMINGLY FORGETTING COSCO entirely.
Doesn't make sense to me.
I think, in relative terms,
China has A LOT MORE economic and military capacity now compared to Japan then.
AND THEY ARE INCREASING THEIR ECONOMIC AND MILITARY CLOUT, BY THE HOUR, FAIRLY RAPIDLY.
This is not just for appearances, window dressing.
THEY INTEND FULLY TO BE KING OF THE HILL. They won't be--largely because they will attack Israel and Israel will be king of the hill by God's design.
But there will be plenty of hell to pay because they are sooooo intent on being king of the hill.
I still think that Kipling had it more accurately.
Negotiating with any Asians as Westerners is likely to result in their wins to our losses.
Negotiating, relating, fighting China can easily and chronically be like navigating a Chinese puzzle box blind-folded and more than half drunk.
Memo to Chinese Communists: Shove it !
Dubya at the wheel, not Kringtone.
Really? What have the Chicoms created/invented lately? Say in the last 50 years?
They manufacture more and more of our staple goods, not just cheap toys.
They assemble more and more of our smart weapons, which, of course they will never be able to reverse-engineer and manufacture for their own military.
The Fortune 500 has billions of $ invested in mainland China with billions more to come, because, let's face it, slave labor pays off bigtime.
If anybody thought the Great American Bugout from Vietnam in 1975 was a disgrace, it won't even begin to compare to the betrayal when we sell Taiwan down the river.
How about unconventional warfare? How about providing massive (covert/deniable) logistical & intelligence support to Al-Queda, and other enemies of the US?
There is not, said Sun, any basis for American government officials to accuse China of eroding freedoms in Hong Kong.
Hahahaha, how stupid do they think we are? Democrats?
Probably less than the number of young Chinese men of military age that are in the US right now on educational and H1B visas. Think outside the box. It's better to have lots and lots of people already inside, with lots of cached weapons and demolition gear, than to try a conventional move against the US military.
How would the US street gangs react to suddenly being provided with access to heavy-duty weaponry? How would the US economy do if a couple hundred sniper teams with .50 cal tracer/incindiary rounds started taking out gasoline trucks on US highways at rush hour?
Our friends the Chinese. Not.
And didn't they relax the one child rule recently? Trying to get more girls into the child mix. Pretty soon it will occur to them that they could use more land, maybe all of South America and points north...just get rid of the native inhabitants.
No loss, I've never been in a WalMart.
# 3 has been removed. I don't think that word was necessary.
People don't necessarilly have to be have badly.
Yes and we shared it with them. Responsible for our own demise? (We are the greatest nation on earth, we need to elect leaders that reflect that).
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.