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.
You can defend the Chi-coms all you want; official US policy does not and will not agree to/countenance/support/ignore/or fail to respond to any attempt to resolve the issue between Taiwan and mainland China with military force. The diplomats have their role in all this, but at the end of the day, if China chooses the military option, diplomacy will have ended. That is US policy, regardless of your wishful thinking otherwise, and regardless of your commie-loving ignorance.
"I do not want to engage in unnecessary war with China. I do not want a single American to die for TI. Your remarks are entirely unpersuasive on those two points given the progress that the Chinese have made toward freedom."
Name just one condition of that progress. There are none, and everyone in China knows the difference between privileges that the dictators allow, as long as they can keep control, and rights controlled by the people, which, in China are none.
Nothing that is presented as "progress" in China is as a matter of right in China and none of that "progress" exists in any manner in the political arena - zero, zip, zilch, nada.
The "free enterprise" appearance of China is a fiction. Most every major "private" company in China has one of the following conditions within its corporate foundation and structure: (1)it is an entity wholly owned by an entity of the government or the Communist party of China; (2)it is an entity with 100% of its voting shares held by an entity of the government or the Communist party of China: (3)it is an entity whose charter requires that controlling membership of its board of directors comes from Chinese government entities or members of the Chinese communist party; (4)it is a "private" business owned by or permitted to be created by one or more Communist Party officials. No foreign company, no matter how large, operates in China without an official relationship or partnership or ties to the Chinese Communist Party or an entity controlled by the Chinese government.
The Chinese economic model is closest to Nazi Germany and could best be described as State-Capitalism; the junction of seemingly "capitalist" entities under the control of a single, unitary political dictatorship and the government that party maintains.
Private entities allowed to operate on the margins of the state's control know it is a privilege that the state or the party can revoke at will - play to get along or don't play at all - and often, and regularly is; but that privilege (to be outside of the party's control) is inoperable for any major enterprise or industry.
There is nothing in the way of reforms in the offing that will change that. Instead, the party has co-opted the business community, brought them into the party and made it clear that it is their party relationship, not rights, not laws, not freedoms, that will guarantee their continued economic good health. As long as they kiss the dictators ass, they can make money. "Freedom" at present in China is a western illusion and nothing more.
"the freedom I'm talking about is freedom of speech, freedom to start one's own business, own one's own land, criticize the government, leave the country, attend church, etc."
"freedom of speech" does not exist in China.
What you see as freedom of expression in China is not "freedom of speech". It is mere privileges to let various forms of speech be expressed, not rights to free expression; and those privileges as privileges are non-existent in the political sphere.
You are like a westerner who guys to UAE and upon seeing all the shopping malls says: "my how free and modern they are".
The "prosperity" is not an expression of freedom, it is only an expression of privileges the dictators have granted as long as those privileges are not abused (as long as the dictators are not opposed).
"why have they not already crushed Hong Kong?"
Hong Kong exists for and profits as the Asian center of international finance and without that role, Hong Kong's economy is dead and without Hong Kong continuing to have its privileges (for the moment) western capital will not continue to flow into China. The western system of property rights to which Hong Kong law still, ostensibly, maintains, helps protect western investments into China through Hong Kong. If China ends the semi-independence of Hong Kong, the west will not continue its rate of investments in China. China needs those investments, so it needs Hong Kong, as it is.
"Liberty is for all, as has been demonstrated by the growth of liberty in China over the past 20 years."
You don't know what liberty is. The only thing that has grown in China are privileges that the dictators have granted, not liberty, not rights, not freedoms based on rights.
In so many of your confusions between observed activities and a clear understanding of rights and freedoms, what is most clear is where you come from - the mis-educated realm of academia in the U.S. today.
Though your mindless repitition suggested it, by pushing the "commie lover" button, you've proven yourself to be a total crank.
If you can't recognize or admit the tremendous changes that have occured in China in terms of political and economic freedom, if you continue to insist that China is still a totalitarian state, then you are either lying or ignorant. In either case, further conversation with you is useless. (I already knew that.)
People everywhere have these rights, though some nations refuse to allow them or protect them. China has made great strides in allowing these rights. Some day, I hope, they may also protect them. Regardless, Chinese people today enjoy far more freedom than they have since before WWII.
"Chinese newsstands and book stores carry publications like USA Today, The Economist, even the Bible. MSNBC and CNN are carried on some cable TV outlets."
All under government and party censorship. They are special mainland Chinese editions. You can get uncensored versions in Singapore (unless it offends old man Yew) and a few things get pass the censors in Hong Kong.
As usual your observations are totally on the surface of things with little understanding of what is really going on underneath.
"The government may be authoritarian, even dictatorial in many ways, but the amount of political freedom"
Did you visit the "Fantastic China" Epcot-type park in Florida? That seems to be where you expressions of political freedom in China come from.
There is zero political freedom in China. There is one political force and only that political force is permitted, period. Those that disagree on that issue are jailed and killed, often with their organs sold as the means of achieving their killing.
There is only one party approved set of candidates at any level of government (or union, or industry trade association, or school board, or academic committee, or parents association, etc., etc., etc.)
You really have no idea what political freedom is do you? Again, the mis-education of your profession has left you totally without the principled base of any "conservatism" you profess to have; as in many of your comments about Rudy, like on his abortion stance.
The principles at stake in Roe v Wade are not about abortion, pro or con; they are about the proper role of the judiciary; they are about whether or not our Constitution begins with the words "We the People" instead of "We the Judges". The issue is not about how Rudy thinks about abortion. The issue is about will he appoint judges who will defend the Constitution or will he appoint judges who want to rewrite it from the bench, one ruling at a time. That cannot be a matter of even what a judge thinks about abortion. It must be a matter of whether or not the judges understand the Constitutional limits of their role and the limits of their powers within that role - based on the division of those powers by the Constitution.
I doubt if you understand the ramifications of that, with your concept of "freedom" you see in China today.
"The Bush "doctrine" has always been that Taiwan is part of China and that neither country should act recklessly."
Wrong with this repeated myth of yours.
The Bush doctrine is the same as previous Presidents' doctrine on the issue and the operative terms in that doctrine never refer to "reckless". The operative term is "military force". The issue cannot be resolved by military force and any act by China contrary to that would mean we no longer have an agreement with China on that issue. That is the doctrine.
"China has made great strides in allowing these rights"
They are not rights and the Chinese people, unlike you, understand that. They are privileges granted by dictators and can, and are, denied at the whim of those dictators. Unlike you, with your actual rights, they have no recourse against the denial of them, because they are not rights - simply privileges with no foundational guarantees.
Chinese people have no more freedom today than before WWII, but the evidence of the leftist-materialist idea of freedom in your academic indoctrination is clearly evident.
"If you can't recognize or admit the tremendous changes that have occured in China in terms of political and economic freedom"
It is a one-party authoritarian dictatorship. The only political "freedom" that takes place is that some (not all) communist party members are free to express an opinion or two within communist party meetings. There is no open freedom for people to form their own party, challenge the current dictatorship or challenge anyone in it or anyone in the party. The only "political" freedom in China is in your imagination.
By having no understanding of the difference between a Shanghai resident able to shop at a modern mall and freedom, you have shown yourself to be totally ignorant about either freedom or rights.
Your conservatism is totally on the surface, without principled foundation, like picking from a menu of the surface appearance of things you like and not the things themselves.
As you said it yourself, someone like Rudy is good to vote for because he has that surface attraction that so many shallow thinking people like.
Voting for Rudy is like nominating Harriet Meiers to the SCOTUS - buying a pig in a poke. But, for you, at least it looks good.
Bump.
Rights that are "allowed" can be "disallowed", hence
not "Rights" at all.
Anyone that thinks that American lives won't be lost to a
Chinese take over of Taiwan does not understand American
resolve.
As to Asian nations accepting our doing nothing in regards to a Military takeover, certainly they would accept it, they would have no other choice, but they would never trust or rely on us AGAIN. It is why we must not let the Iraqi nation fail.
Wuli went on to state that, "Blah blah blah, quack quack quack."
When asked to elaborate, Wuli stated that "yadda yadda yadda lie, yadda yadda yadda lie."
You are simply a big lying mouth. You haven't said one single truthful thing during the entire time you've been addressing me. You ought to apply for work with the MSM.
You appear to lack any understanding of history, human nature, or Chinese social or political dynamics. If Ayn Rand was a Coke machine, you'd be her.
I'll send you 50 cents and you can call your mom and tell her you're not so smart after all.
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.