Posted on 03/24/2006 6:50:36 PM PST by Republican Party Reptile
Ma's red-carpet treatment in US a snub to Chen
The Straits Times Publication Date : 2006-03-25 The scene was replayed throughout the day on Taiwanese TV news: US Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick walking through the main entrance of Washington's Metropolitan Club for a meeting with Taiwanese opposition leader Ma Ying-jeou that neither side had acknowledged publicly.
Zoellick's public appearance on March 22 was unusual because Washington's contacts with visiting Taiwanese politicians or officials have always been conducted away from the glare of the media.
So in according this special treatment to the Kuomintang (KMT) leader, Washington was openly snubbing Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian, who has repeatedly irked the US with his pro-independence actions.
It was also the clearest signal from the US government that it supports a peacemaker, not a troublemaker, as the future leader of Taiwan.
The US government has rolled out the red carpet for Ma, who is mayor of Taipei, since his arrival earlier this week, lining up for him a series of meetings with mayors and officials.
The attention lavished on the KMT chief, who is a leading contender for the presidency in 2008, was unprecedented.
During his two-day stop in Washington - the most important leg of his trip - he met high-ranking US officials overseeing Asia-Pacific affairs from the White House, as well as the State and Defence departments.
These officials included Zoellick, Christopher Hill, the assistant secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, White House deputy national security adviser Jack Crouch and deputy assistant defence secretary Richard Lawless.
The Taiwan government's US representative David Lee, who followed Ma closely during his Washington stay, was conspicuously absent from the meetings.
The treatment accorded to Ma was especially telling, in comparison with a similar visit in 2004 by the then-chairman of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), Su Tseng-chang.
The highest-level official that Su met then was the assistant deputy secretary of state.
Now Taiwan's Premier, Su is widely expected to be the DPP's candidate for the 2008 presidential race.
Washington had originally planned to grant Ma the same protocol accorded to Su, so as not to appear to favour a particular party, according to reports.
But the Bush administration apparently had a change of heart following Chen's decision last month to drop an advisory council on eventual unification with the mainland despite US opposition.
Frustrated with the increasingly unpredictable leader, Washington decided to allow his political rival unprecedented access to the highest echelons of the US government, said the US-based, privately run Nelson Report, a source of Washington insider stories.
Some observers also interpret the special treatment as an unusually open endorsement from the US, which had been careful not to show its preference for any party or its candidate at such an early stage of the presidential race.
'Although Taiwanese leaders met high-ranking US officials in the past, these meetings were conducted in private.
'This is a breakthrough for the KMT in its exchanges with the US,' said Professor Chen I-Hsin of Tamkang University's Graduate Institute of American Studies.
'The public endorsement for Ma will send a strong political message to Taiwanese voters,' he told The Straits Times.
While most analysts agree that the pragmatic KMT chief appears to be a safer bet than Chen, some point out that Washington will face a different dilemma if the KMT, which favours eventual unification with China, regains power in 2008.
'The US will have the same policy headache, regardless of whether it is a pro-independence or pro-unification politician leading Taiwan,' said Professor Lin Cheng-yi, a research fellow at the Academia Sinica, Taiwan's top think-tank.
In fact, there are already concerns that Taiwan under Ma will follow in South Korea's footsteps by distancing itself from the US, he pointed out.
'If Ma wins the presidency, the US will expect him to fine-tune his party's cross-strait stance.
'If Taiwan loses its separate entity by tilting too much towards China, it will present a major challenge to Washington's East Asia policy,' he added.
Ma also gave a speech at the Heritage Foundation.
Thoughts?
I doubt whether Bush had anything to do with this, but I wouldn't put it past the idiots at the State Department.
State Department. A few months back a whitehouse smokesman blasted the KMT for opposing the weapons deal offered by Bush in 2001.
Much of the posturing in Taiwan over the arms package is grand-standing for the Taiwanese public on Taiwan's internal politcal theatre - both the DPP and KMT playing to their faithfuls. It's a shame and a mockery really, but that's part of Taiwanese politics today. Back before the DPP won the presidency in 2000, the DPP legislators were the ones taking pot shots and blocking Taiwan's fighter jet development (AIDC's IDF project, nicknamed by the DPP in the 90's as "I don't fly / fight", opposing the ACS mini-Aegis project for Taiwan's Perry class FFG ... etc.).
Anyway, back to the KMT, the scuttlebutt in Taiwanese poltical gossip is that as Ma and co. gets closer to the sniffing at the 2008 Taiwanese presidential election, they are backpedaling and moderating their stance on the arms package and thus secure more votes (rumor is that the P-3C Orion purchase will now go through, the submarine package will be divided up into smaller chunks to make it look like the it's easier to pass the budget ... etc.)
We'll see how it pans out. Both DDP and KMT have their core / base true belivers, but one sees growing percentage of the Taiwanese voters in the middle becoming cynical that maybe both parties are more interested in positioning for local power and influence and not much on enlightened governance.
During his two-day stop in Washington - the most important leg of his trip - he met high-ranking US officials overseeing Asia-Pacific affairs from the White House, as well as the State and Defense departments.
These officials included Zoellick, Christopher Hill, the assistant secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, White House deputy national security adviser Jack Crouch and deputy assistant defence secretary Richard Lawless.
The fun never stops here in bin lang land.
They are essentially extorting the US by refusing to spend money for arms unless they have the presidency.
Ma in his talks very much pandered to the former State Reds under Clinton, eg Nye, Lieberthall and the ideas they put forth back in Clinton's time.
One can't take "Republican Party Animal" seriously. ChiCom boy he is. Straits Times. Funny.
The reason Ma received his welcome in US is because he is certain to be the 2008 Presidential Elect.
It's pretty simple. Like I said, Ma will be President in 2008.
It's just a weird Straits Times article. Taking it seriously is like taking a MSM article about how great the newest dimocrat politician is.
Zoellick? Weird fantasy time as far as importance.
Zoellick seems to be maneuvering for a spot in Clinton II.
How so? :-)
Well, I don't know that much first hand about the party infighting in Taiwan, but I do know that the State Department is not called Foggy Bottom without good reason.
No president has EVER been able to straighten those guys out. Not even Kissinger could straighten them out. Not Eisenhower, not Reagan. It's a hopeless morass of squishy liberals and professional timeservers. The only way to fix it would be to fire everyone, shut down the whole thing, blow up the buildings and sow the ground with salt, and start afresh, being extremely careful never to hire any political science majors from the Ivy Leagues.
I fault Bush for not doing something about the FBI and the CIA earlier, but at State it's business as usual. These guys would welcome Pol Pot back from the dead if it suited them.
Your statements indicate that you are not too familiar with Chinese history. If China was a democracy and not Communist country, her position on Taiwan will be the same. My question to you is what is Taiwan historically (do your google, yahoo, public library searches, etc) and tell me. Is it a former territory of China or historically always been an independent country? Let me save you some time (but you can still research it). Taiwan was settled by rennants of the Ming after they were defeated by the Manchus and was under Chinese rule since 1600's (short reign under Ming general, whose descendents surrendered to the Manchus) and Taiwan was under Manchurian Dynastic rule in the late 1600's, taken over by the Japanese in 1895 after Japan defeated China in the Sino Japanese War of 1895, and returned back to the Nationalist China in 1945 after Japan was defeated by the Allies, and since 1949 it is the last stronghold of the Nationalist after they were driven from the mainland by the Communists. Today the Civil War is unresolved and technically an unofficial ceasefire exists between the two sides and either side can resume the fighting. Before I continue this tread, do we agree with the historical background of this issue?
Some more history. In 1895 when China ceded Taiwan to Japan in a Treaty against Taiwan's will, Taiwanese themselves formed the first republic in Asian history as well. Japan was able to defeat and take over within a few months and Taiwan MinGuo lasted a very short Time.
A factual error you made was that Japan returned Taiwan to China. That never happened because in 1949 the communists had takn over China so there was no way the original idea of Cairo would be allowed to happened.
Japan relinquished sovereignty over Taiwan in 1952 in the Treay of San Francisco which ended the war proper. It was not returned to China and neither ROC in exile on Taiwan or PRC were involved in this treaty. Until this treaty in 1952, Taiwan was technically still part of Japan.
Taiwan is not an eternal part of China at all but an ancient home for indo-malay people. Chinese began to move to Taiwan -- against the Chinese government's laws in most cases -- in the late 1600's. This emigration continued in to the 1800's. China later gave Taiwan to Japan in the late 1800's. Taiwan formed the first asian republic in response. In 1952 Japan relinquished Sovereignty over Taiwan in the Treaty of San Francisco.
And that's where it stands. The Chicom claim that taiwan is part of the PRC is nonsesne with no basis at all. Dr Sun, Mao and consistent early writings of the Chinese communists all denied Taiwan was part of China.
When Chiang Kai-shek was able to convince Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt to give Taiwan to ROC after the war, that was when the communists suddenly decided Taiwan was Chinese territory.
What you presented is great, and the crux of the conflict. The whole thing boils down to what is Taiwan? From the Chinese viewpoint, Taiwan is part of China since 1622, lost it to Japan in 1895 and regained after World War II (or post World War II). What reinforces the Chinese claim is the US recognized Taiwan as the Republic of China, and the KMT the legitimate government of mainland China until President Carter changed the policy. The US never considered Taiwan as an occupied nation. Personally, I think China should forget about Taiwan from a business viewpoint. A typical Chinese will tell you never, never and never because China has already lost alot of territory during the 19th and 20th Century. Unknown to them, the Communist Chinese already settled their border differences with Russia (ceding the Amur region, and the three mile border move by Czarist Russia) giving up claims that they vowed under Mao never to give up. Reason for change? Need for Russian advanced arms and oil. War over Taiwan will threaten China's economical advances of the recent years. If Taiwan becomes independent, what has China lost? Granted some of them will claim that the island will be used by the US and Japan to form a naval barrier against the China. But the future of Chinese power lies in her economy and not military force. As China's economy grows, her influence will grow, and a US naval barrier will not contain it. Furthermore, Taiwan's economy already depends on Chinese manufacturing, and as China's economy grows, the dependency will grow and in essense China will conquer the peripheral nations by economical influence.
That's the ChiCom idea and plan.
If China weren't a fascist dictatorship, China being the major economical influence in the regions (along with Japan) would be completely natural.
There is one problem and one only -- the Chinese communist party.
This 'unification' business has been ruining China ever since the agents of the Kremlin appeared (that is about 1919-20) in that country.
The proposed (by some Americans) 'unification' of the Red forces with the Chiang Kai-shek-led Nationalist forces in the 1940's resulted in the encroachment by the Reds over the mainland which remains a problem till this very day. (As evidenced by this article).
Louis Budenz had observed something to this effect : the coalition government was a device used by the Communists to slaughter everbody with whom they had entered into the coalition.
That tactic had been used in each and every country of the East and Central Europe 1940-50's ; just as well as in China with the effect of there still having been a problem (as evidenced by the article).
There may be nothing wrong with the unification of China ; as soon as the mainland abandons the murderous marxist-leninist-maoist 'ideology'.
But this does not seem imminent. It may be wise to try not to exacerbate any matters ; however, to consider a 'unification' before there is some convincing liberalization in the mainland Chine is to consider the matters in the wrong order.
The hydra of marxism-leninism had not yet disappeared world-wide. It is anybody's guess where the Reds may be located in terms or their communication centres.
So long as there are any marxist-leninist organizations present anywhere in the world one can hardly be convinced of the liberalization in the mainland China. (The Bolshevik racket was expressly international in character).
Hence, let me repeat, to consider 'unification' in this case would be highly premature and it would be wrong order of consideration.
Whereof one should not speak of, thereon one should remain silent (based in one European author).
W. Paul Tabaka
Ma represents the future of Taiwan. He's young, dynamic, and savy -- one of the good guys. The Taiwan independence movement has nowhere left to go. Though the KMT has never been "pure as snow," Chen's party is now viewed as very corrupt.
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.