Posted on 01/04/2005 7:57:47 PM PST by nanak
The US and China will hold their first high-level discussions on Beijing's proposed "anti-secession" law this week during a three-day visit to Washington by the director of Beijing's Taiwan Affairs Office, Chen Yunlin (êë…ÁÖ), which comes at a critical time in US-Taiwan-China relations.
The State Department confirmed on Monday that Chen was to arrive yesterday for talks with US officials on a number of cross-strait issues. He is also expected to meet members of Congress.
Included will be a meeting tomorrow with Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage in which the "anti-secession" law is expected to be a main topic of conversation.
That meeting will be the first since the Standing Committee of China's National People's Congress (NPC) last week decided to endorse a draft "anti-secession" law and send it to the NPC's plenary session in March.
The law, the text of which has not been released, is believed to mandate military action against Taiwan if Taipei moves toward independence in a manner unacceptable to the Beijing leadership.
The US has so far declined substantive comment on the law, claiming that it cannot do so without seeing the text first.
Chen's visit to Washington comes at a tense moment in US-Taiwan relations, sparked by a number of recent statements by top State Department officials which have been interpreted as signaling a perceptible anti-Taiwan shift in Bush-administration policy.
Confirming the Chen-Armitage meeting, the State Department called on both sides to begin a dialogue and not "complicate" the situation.
"The US' long-standing position is that both the People's Republic of China and Taiwan should engage in dialogue to peacefully resolve their differences, and not do anything that unilaterally changes the status quo or complicates the management of this sensitive issue," the department said.
Armitage deeply upset Taiwan's supporters in Washington and Taiwanese officials last month with statements he made during an interview on the PBS network in the US.
Asked about US policy toward Taiwan, Armitage said that the US was not obligated to defend Taiwan in case of Chinese military attack.
He also stated flatly that, "we all agree that there is but one China, and Taiwan is part of China."
That statement was met with fury by Taiwan's supporters in Washington, who pointed out that this stance has never been US policy. Instead, they said that US statements in the three communiques with China forming the basis of US-China relations did not support Armitage's interpretation.
In the communiques the US "acknowledges" the Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China, but does not commit the US to agreeing with this position.
Armitage's statement drew special attention in view of an earlier statement by Secretary of State Colin Powell during a trip to Beijing, in which he spoke of a US policy favoring "reunification."
Powell later said he misspoke and meant to say "resolution." But that failed to quell the furor in Taipei that his original statement generated.
More recently, Powell expressed no "immediate" concern over China's latest defense white paper, which declared that the aim of China's military modernization was to crush Taiwan's attempts to become independent.
Meanwhile, the main Taiwanese congressional lobby group in Washington, the Formosa Association for Public Affairs (FAPA), on Monday urged Congress to "take some concrete action" to condemn the "anti-secession" law.
The law is "China's latest plot to create a legal framework to annex Taiwan," said FAPA president Wu Ming-chi (…ÇÃ÷»ù), adding that when Chen meets members of Congress, he "will surely get more than an earful" from the members.
FAPA also released a letter from Republican Representative Tom Tancredo to the State Department expressing concern over the department's "failure" to condemn the planned law, which he called a "thinly veiled attempt by Beijing to create a `legal framework' for starting a war with Taiwan."
VIVA TANCREDO!!!!!!
All this anti-secession talk is interesting coming as it does from Republicans...
More important than an affront to Taiwan, an anti-secession position is at odds with the Declaration of Independence.
It's a good thing we still have men like Tancredo on the Hill.
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Unless you live in Taiwan...
So long as we can get stuff cheaper at Wal-Mart, we don't need to worry about little things like this.
Also at odds with the American belief systems is communism...along with persecutions (jailing, torture, seizure of property, without due process etc. etc.) of Christians and those of the pro democracy movement.
I don't care whether we guarantee free elections anywhere (I'd prefer we didn't). But I really don't like the idea of advocating a foreign policy that so directly repudiates the Declaration of Independence.
the problem is that--out of power in Taiwan-- the Koumintang is selling out taiwan to the mainland. the country is basically losing interest in being independent. and the US therefor is less willing to supply advanced weapons that might fall into the hands of the pla. this reinforces the upper military hand of the mainland chinese which further demoralizes the independence minded taiwanese.
The illegal immigration issue and this issue may bring Bush much sorrow in the new year from the right.
"More recently, Powell expressed no "immediate" concern over China's latest defense white paper, which declared that the aim of China's military modernization was to crush Taiwan's attempts to become independent. "
***This might be the crux of the change in policy towards China. The Bush administration doesn't want to see a military buildup aimed towards the reintegration of Taiwan. If they can give Taiwan over peacefully, they might not be facing the prospect of a built up, invigorated and equipped offensive Chinese Army and Navy.
I recently asked my father-in-law, who was born in China, what he thought of these developments. He said that he supported it, he didn't support Taiwanese independence because he was Chinese. Basically it's typical of kuomintong Chinese who are racist in their approach towards the Taiwanese. They support democratic independence everywhere in the world except Taiwan. They have a pie-in-the-sky view that the Chinese can be overcome by the economic opening of the society similar to what happened between east and west Germany. One of the things he conveniently neglects is that the Berlin wall fell down due to strong resilience on the part of the Reagan administration and Neutron warhead rollout/implementation in West Germany.
This whole thing gives me a sickening feeling.
We have been consistent with Taiwan. But sometimes people say stupid things at stupid times (ie the Armitage statement) and certain cultures throw hissy fits. I am certain that the purpose for these meeting is to quietly explain to the PRC how "unproductive" this law will be to relations. And hopefully, afterwards it will quietly go away as the rhetoric dies down for the n'th time in 50 years.
VIVA TANCREDO!!
I agree!
The State Department is perhaps the most treasonous acgency within our own government. Its members are more against Conservatives than they are against enemies of the United States.
No. This is not accurate.
No. If quoted correctly Armitage is not consistent and is not reflecting thirty plus years of stated policy.
I disagree with the consistent policy you reference, but in this case Armitage is definitely not consistent with it.
What do you mean by "it"?
Armitage's statement was poorly worded and could easily be seen as inconsistent. Again, he is a diplomat who said, in most everyones opinion, the wrong thing at the wrong time. His statement however, does not automatically change policy. The policy, which weve discussed way to much over the last week, has been consistent. If TW is attacked without provocation, we will defend her.
"it" being the proposed law by the PRC
This has never been policy, per se.
And the caveat about "provocation" is new and ad hoc.
There is no consistency or coherence.
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.