Posted on 03/07/2007 5:07:38 AM PST by zook
Washington called President Chen Shui-bian's pledge to push for independence "unhelpful" Monday and reiterated its stance against independence for the island Beijing regards as a renegade province.
"As it is well-established, the U.S. does not support independence for Taiwan," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.
"President (George W.) Bush has repeatedly underscored his opposition to unilateral changes to the status quo by either Taipei or Beijing because this threatens regional peace and stability, U.S. national interests and Taiwan's own welfare," McCormack said.
He reminded that Chen had pledged in his 2000 and 2004 inaugurations to not declare independence, change the island state's name, or advocate other sovereignty themes.
"President Chen's fulfillment of his commitments is a test of leadership, dependability and statesmanship and of his ability to protect Taiwan's interests, its relations with others and to maintain peace and stability in the Strait," McCormack said.
"Rhetoric that could raise doubts about these commitments is unhelpful."
On Sunday Chen told a group of Taiwan independence advocates that "Taiwan wants independence, Taiwan wants to change its name, Taiwan wants a new constitution, Taiwan wants development."
Such rhetoric in the past has angered Beijing, and raised concerns in the United States, which has pledged to protect Taiwan from Chinese military aggression.
"The idea of "helping the people of Taiwan fight for their independence" by supporting TI is wrong on two levels. It assumes that the majority of the people want to do this, and it leads to an unthinkable war with China."
It is not a matter of "helping the people of Taiwan fight for their independence". It is to uphold our agreement of understanding (with both sides) that we will remain agnostic on whether or not Taiwan is or is not to be independent, but we have pledged (to both sides) that our neutral stance is predicated (dependent) on the position that the issue CANNOT BE RESOLVED BY FORCE.
China, in our view, has lots of options against any words or non-military deeds that Taiwan makes, independently; including but not limited to seeking other nations to not deal economically or diplomatically with Taiwan - which it does all the time.
What we have never agreed to is to allow the issue to be resolved by military force. Military force to resolve the issue is against the position and agreement we have made to both sides, as well as part of our official national security doctrine.
Your opinion is not even in the ballpark with official US doctrine on the matter in Reagan's time, G.H.W. Bush's time, Clinton's time or now; because you continue to ignore that while we have agreed to refrain from actively seeking for Taiwan to be independent, which is what we do, we do so under agreements in which we have said we will not support military force as a means to resolving the issue. Our agreements to be neutral is predicated on that understanding. Military force would break the agreement to which our neutrality is tied. That absence of military force to force a resolution of the issue on the people of Taiwan is central to our continued neutrality. Unlike you, China knows it and knows we could no longer keep our neutrality if that understanding is broken.
If that understanding was not completely clear to China, which it is, then it has been capable of invading Taiwan, for years. It wants to take over Taiwan, no matter what any Taiwanese politician says or does. Chen's statements do not change Chinese policy, do not change the fact that China has been able and could invade Taiwan and wants to bring under the rule of the Communist Party of China. Chen's statements do not change, add or detract from want China wants.
So, why has China not already taken Taiwan? Because Chen or some other political leader of Taiwan has or has not done something in the past? No. China has not tried to take Taiwan with military force because unlike you, who in your spineless weakness would lead the Chinese to the illusion that they could attack Taiwan with impunity, they know that our agreement to remain neutral REQUIRES that military force not be used to force China's will on Taiwan.
Wars are made to happen by the weak who lead aggressors into believing their aggression will not be countered. Were the Chinese to believe your spineless myths about US policy, they would in fact start a war. They have not done so yet, because they know it will end our neutrality over Taiwan.
I've actually given several example across my posts. You simply deny they exist. I told you about increased freedom of religion and you denied it. But I have actually seen it.
I told you about Bibles being sold in mainstream book stores. You denied it. But I have actually seen it.
I told you about protest art on display in Beijing galleries. You denied it. But I have actually seen it.
I told you about western news magazines and cable TV outlets made available, not just in foreigner hotels, but for Chinese citizens. You denied it, but I have actually seen it.
I mentioned the fact that unlike prior decades, Chinese people are free to leave China, even to immigrate to other countries. I don't know what you said about this, but you'll probably deny it.
All your denials are lies.
Why should anyone take you seriously anymore?
Again you lie. I might have said you are misinformed, but I think you are lying intentionally. US policy is to support the status quo. US policy is for neither country to break with the status quo.
Right now, Chen and the DPP are closer to breaking the status quo than China is. And we have put Chen on notice as diplomatically as possible, at least in public, that he cannot count on us to pull his nuts out of the fire if the DPP declares independence.
No American soldier, sailor, or pilot will die for TI.
The US saying that the Taiwan situation should not be resolved by force, is not the same as saying we will send our young men to die for TI.
The situation is so simple that one wonders how you can continue to lie about it while keeping a straight face.
No TI + Chinese attack = Possible US military response
TI + Chinese attack = Strong US protest, no military response.
Again, you make a statement about "democracy" and since you can't back it up and can't factually deny any of the aspects of "democracy" that I pointed out do not exist in China, you change the subject from "democracy" to privileges handed out by the dictatorship - privileges that under a dictatorship are not rights and have not any thing to do with the granting of them through any form of "democracy". Apparently (but no surprise) colleges no longer teach the meaning of "democracy", or what actual freedom with the rights that go with it actually are. So, before reading on, go get a dictionary and look up "democracy".
As to the privileges you now bring back into the discussion, such as:
I told you about increased freedom of religion and you denied it. But I have actually seen it."
When the dictatorship does not control who runs religious organizations and who may head them and which religions or religious sects can have them, then, maybe, you can talk about "freedom of religion" in China; until then it is not "free". Maybe you also need to look up the meaning of "free". I never denied anywhere in any posts that there are religious organizations in China and that more people in China practice some religious faiths today. But let one sect or the other openly suggest that the clothes that the Emperors' myths are dressed in, like yours, are non-existent, and the Emperors will shut them up with as much brutality as which the Romans destroyed Israel. Oh, I'm sorry, that they already do. Unlike actual "freedom of religion" where the pastors openly and public talk about their faith's implication on public policy. Oh, but that would be a "democratic" freedom and we're not talking about that are we? No, we're not. We are talking about a state controlled and state permitted privilege which requires that the conscience of the person of faith is subservient to the control of the state over the operations of that faith practice. What you observe is the religious window-dressing the dictatorship permits, as long as it is not forgotten that it controls its public expression.
"I told you about Bibles being sold in mainstream book stores. You denied it. But I have actually seen it."
Why do you make up lies? Find a statement where I denied what you said about seeing bibles sold in mainstream book stores. I made no such statement. What I did say was that what your Shanghai shopping mall view did not see was a ransacked apartment that the day before had been full of bibles but was empty of not only the bibles but its former residents, who no private citizen or friend can find and where the neighbors have seen no one but state security officers at the apartment since the night before. But, maybe they are just one of the groups of Christians that forgot that in China "religious freedom" does not really mean "freedom of religion"
"I told you about protest art on display in Beijing galleries. You denied it. But I have actually seen it."
More lies. Again, I never denied your observation of a "protest art display" in China; never. What I did call to your attention is that what you never observed, as I have (2 months ago) where after a couple days of letting an artists protest remain up, the next morning saw the art and the artist could no longer be found - by anyone, not even his wife who said he never got to their house the night before. If it is an objection, a "protest", that is under control, or will not achieve great public merit (he's just a crank), or for which the security officials want to just let the individual vent with the knowledge that (1)he will not get any support and (2) whether or not he does we are not going to do anything that he wants done anyway. But, let that protest actually pose a challenge to policy, authority or officials and their official positions, and you will see people disappear, as I have experienced twice in China in the last year. Again, you have a tourists view of China.
"I told you about western news magazines and cable TV outlets made available, not just in foreigner hotels, but for Chinese citizens. You denied it, but I have actually seen it.
More lies from the zook. I never denied what you saw. I told you that what you did not see was the censorship regulations that went into the mainland versions of western publications and how much those censorship regulations apply to the local press. You want to have a glossy music video magazine, with no editorial page? No problem. The Economist? Time? Newsweek? etc. etc. etc. Censored mainland versions all. How about "The New Republic" - does not exist in China, nor does any western political magazine that actually might talk about real democracy and actually might criticize China's policies. No. That would be about "democracy", and that's not what we are talking about is it?
I mentioned the fact that unlike prior decades, Chinese people are free to leave China, even to immigrate to other countries. I don't know what you said about this, but you'll probably deny it.
I made no comment on it, and why should I? I am sure that with a billion people and wanting no political dissent to its dictatorship at home, the dictators in China are happy to let any part of its excess labor force and dissidents leave.
The only lies in this thread are your myths that any of your observations were denied, by me or anyone else. They weren't. The problem is that they were not observations about either "democracy" or "political freedom" or true "religious freedom". They are public patina of privileges which the Chinese people will keep as long as those privileges do not threaten the dictators. They are not rights. They are not democracy. They do not come from any democratic process, any democratic decision making process. And any one of those privileges will be, and is now, denied anytime their use threatens the dictators. You can lie about those things and continue with your touristy surface impressions of the realities underneath it all. It will not convert your myths to either democracy of freedom.
Why is someone like you with no understanding of the meaning of "democracy", "political freedom" or anything else of that nature even here, in this forum, of serious minded conservatives; because its quite obvious that your shallow understanding of western values is a joke. So, why should anyone take you seriously anymore? Oh, sorry, no one does.
"The situation is so simple that one wonders how you can continue to lie about it while keeping a straight face."
The only thing that keeps me from keeping a straight face is my laughter over your ignorance of actual policy and your thinking that you can write your own and the US government is going to follow it. They won't.
Again, you obfuscate and divert. You make myths substituting "should not" for the policy which is "cannot".
US doctrine, US agreements signed with Taiwan and China pledge our neutrality to the resolution of Taiwan's eventual status - only as long as force is not used to change that status. The use of force will end our neutrality, we will no longer be neutral, and our national strategic doctrine includes (with plans and everything) military defense of Taiwan should that happen.
Now, you can wish all you want for another policy, but that will not make it so.
You have ignorantly tied this to some non-existent pledge of ours AGAINST Taiwan independence. There is no such pledge. We have pledged that we will be neutral, neither for or against independence; neither for or against reunification; but we have not pledged that Taiwan MUST NOT be independent. We have not pledged that the solution MUST BE reunification. We have not pledged anything but to remain neutral as long as, and only as long as, military force is not used as the resolving factor. Force enters the equation and we are no longer neutral and we will defend Taiwan.
"US policy is to support the status quo. US policy is for neither country to break with the status quo."
Like a true liberal when you lose one form of the argument you change the terms you are making your argument on.
Again you display your ignorance. There is no policy protecting the diplomatic term, and the condition it is predicated on, referred to as "the status quo". That is diplomatic language for the present situation; which is what the term means. It is not the agreements or the terms of the agreements; it is simply "today".
The agreements do not pledge the United States to "keep the status quo". The "status quo" is referred to because it represents our position of neutrality over what a solution must be with the absence of military force; which is the "status quo" but any resolution or continued peaceful difference in the absence of military force, would also be in the framework we agreed on. The only condition we did NOT agree to was the use of force to resolve it.
The agreements pledge only that we neither demand nor deny the possibility of Taiwan independence; that we neither demand nor deny the possibility of reunification. It is not up to us to settle it, but however it is settled, we are pledged to the principal that we do not support the military resolution of it, we do not support mainland China dictating a settlement by force. We never have and never will.
You write hundreds of lines, yet they are so easy to refute. You asked for evidence that China had changed. I gave several examples. You were proven to be a liar. So then you change the subject. It's not that China hasn't changed, but that it hasn't changed enough.
You are a hater. The only way China will ever measure up to your standard is when they adopt the American flag and beg to be allowed to kiss your ass.
Rational readers know who is telling the truth. And they know you are about an inch from being a solid kookburger maniac. I hope people keep their kids away from you.
Donald Duck knows more about American foreign policy than you do.
I've changed no terms of any argument. My argument has been simple, straightforward and consistant all the way through. The way one can tell is that it takes me so few words to make it, while you type and type and type like a sputtering out of control motor boat, making larger and larger circles in the water.
My only reason for responding to you at all at this point is because it pleases me to taunt you. I guess I should feel a bit guilty--it's kind of like teasing a caged weasel.
Me thinks we should keep ourselves out of Taiwan's desire to be Independent.
Let them solve their differences with the main land China, on their own terms!
USfoA has no right to interfere in Taiwan's own affairs!. If Taiwan wants military hardware, let them have it and fight their own war if they choose to do so, for whatever reason!
At the same time I believe that it is about time for the United States of America's State Department, to stop meddling in anyones internal affairs, just because they do not like the outcome and/or the course of politics!
Over the years (perhaps as of 1945/1946)the State Department had it's arm twisting bureaucrats more or less dictating politics all over the world, in various forms.
That kind pressure politics irked a lot of our allies in one form or another.
I do agree with you most of the way. For example, if I believed that China was some truly evil totalitarian country, then I'd favor helping Taiwan defend itself. And, because I believe that Islamofascism is truly evil, I support defending free nations against it.
"Rah, rah, rah. Go TI. You have US-China thermonuclear war to gain"
The quicker the better.
Instead of firing Mac Arthur Truman should have said go wipe them out.
First of all, the social connections between China and the US (e.g., friends, familes, colleages, corporations, etc.) are so strong that only the most heartless would want to see any kind of war between the US and China, let alone a nuclear war.
Second of all, China is probably capable in one way or another of killing, at a minimum, thousands of Americans, even in a war they lose.
Call me crazy, but this just isn't something I want.
The cage you see is the cage you are looking out of. You are trapped in your own arguments and you have few words because you have no facts, only your silly repeated mantra of misperception and myth about U.S. policy.
How how brilliant. How many hours did it take you to think that up?
It takes just a second to slap down a Wuli. But it means so much!
Warmonger.
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.