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 guess it is of a piece with those folks who like to say: "the hell with what they do in Washington, if they come for my [insert here] I'll let 'em have it!." By the time the enemy is at your doostep, it is way too late to do anything.
Yes, but China is on the rise, gobbling up more and more concrete, steel, and gasoline. Chinese consumption is one of the reasons that gasoline prices have risen so much. And the more they open their economy and make it more like capitalism, the stronger they'll get. This is one country I almost wish would stay strictly communist because it will keep them weak.
IMO, we should be worrying more about China than a pissant country like Iraq. They're not much of a threat now, but they certainly have the potential, particularly if we come to loggerheads over resources like oil.
Bush could have supported Taiwan's referendum on independence. Instead, Bush came out against the declaration of independence. Bush has continued the Clinton policy of appeasement and money over morality.
Bush would likely approach that toughness as much as the puppet masters let him.
He would likely have to subtract out the nukes for Russia, Iran, Syria, Cuba, France (which I believe will be the European nation Dimitri Duduman 'saw' join Russia and China against us--though no one has said so and Duduman forgot which European nation it was), North Korea and some say--Japan.
Kerry, of course, would not no such pluck nor values. He'd be more likely to OFFER Hawaii.
STRONGLY AGREE.
China delivers blunt warning to U.S. - again? I guess it was time for their monthly threat to blow up the world.
Thanks. I know you have a soft spot in your heart for our Asian FRiends :0)
The same mentality that will look you in the eye and tell you that Tianiman Square never happened is trying to tell you that Taiwanese independence never happened. Taiwan exists as a free and independent capitalistic nation whose mere existance, not to mention prosperity, is a daily reminder to the world that China is impudent. The result is that China has resoprted to chest beating and feces throwing to try to accomplish what is is militarily unable to do. They have also failed to recognize that these tactics, so effective internally, have no positive effect on the American cowboy.
And I noticed your girl friend didn't show. Also predictable.
". My thoughts is it will be conventional and they will try to cost us as much lifes as they can hoping we back out."
There only hope is to try and knock out a few Carriers. If they are successful in that then we could have problems defending Taiwan.
"IMO, we should be worrying more about China than a pissant country like Iraq. They're not much of a threat now, but they certainly have the potential, particularly if we come to loggerheads over resources like oil."
I've always been of the opinion that we should have killed Saddam in reaction to his attempted assasination of a former President of the United States. All after that was delaying the inevitable, delaying what should have been done in 1993.
I'll also add that Iraq's postion, geographically, makes it far more important to us strategically than anything currently related to China.
If we are sucessful in creating a viable democracy in Iraq, future generations will benefit from it far more than any legislation we could ever pass.
Just my opinion. I'm not discounting China as a potential future threat.
Hey, like I said, you wouldn't understand the differences. I didn't call you a racist until after probably your 10th time using stereotypes and slurs - directed specifically at me - it established a pattern of conduct that I found appalling.
However, you will also notice that the poster in question didn't attack me for calling him on it - while YOU couldn't control yourself and just made it worse.
There is no comparison in the two instances. But again, I wouldn't expect you to be able to comprehend or understand the differences.
Good catch, though! Keep up the good work!! ;-)
I also understand lying when I see it, like what you just described what I did.
I didn't do the things you say, and I'm not a racist by any stretch of the imagination. The word I used in jest, which I apologized for, was innocuous and not racist. I only apologized to assuage your liberal sensibilities. None of my posts were removed for the use of the word despite numerous complaints to the mods by you and your girlfriend. The reason is, they didn't think the word was racist, for good reason, it's not.
Now please don't call me a racist anymore, it is a despicable epithet and used as a weapon by liberals, like you.
That's my last word about it on this thread, it's off topic and a bore to others, and I apologize to them.
I didn't know you wanted to be on the "hypocrisy" ping list. I'll be sure to add you.
Just like the word used by the poster on this thread is an unacceptable word, so is the word you continually use to refer to me.
The ONLY difference is, on Free Republic bashing American Indians is ok - and I will continue believing that until the day that derogatory slang terms used to insult American Indians are treated the same as derogatory terms used against others...
So just because the mods didn't do anything about you using racist derogatory words to refer to me matters little. What matters is, it allowed me to see the real you, and what I saw, and continue to see, disgusts me.
Have a nice day.
Part of the absolute domination of our military has to do with our ability to project force where we want to, rapidly. Our carrier groups, even a single one (much less the 7 in the Pacific at the moment), can destroy basically every other military's air and sea forces quite rapidly (possible exception of England). Once those are gone, ground forces, even an army the size of China's, are doomed.
China dos not have the capacity to attack in this manner, much less defend against it.
REALLY DO NOT
CARE
that much
if they lose even 800,000,000 or more people in a war.
It's wouldn't be 800 million ... more like 1.2 billion. Plus without those 800 million they still would lose their industrial base currency and so much face that it would be not worth it.
In 10-20 years when they think they can win ... they WILL strike.
Your assignment today is to write a fifty word essay on how you have come to find yourself in charge of an "hypocrisy" ping list. ;-)
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.