Posted on 10/05/2021 5:35:49 PM PDT by ifinnegan
“Actually that was in the article you posted. I posted about the 1982 agreement in my first post as well.”
Actually, though, this is incorrect.
When I posted the article the following was the total article:
“WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Joe Biden said on Tuesday that he has spoken to Chinese President Xi Jinping about Taiwan and they agreed to abide by the “Taiwan agreement”, as tensions have ratcheted up between Taipei and Beijing.
“I’ve spoken with Xi about Taiwan. We agree ... we’ll abide by the Taiwan agreement,” he said. “We made it clear that I don’t think he should be doing anything other than abiding by the agreement.””
The extra text was added hours later (which does not mention any communiques, so I’m not sure why you claim it is in the updated article).
I found it interesting that your post with the same spin pre-dated the update. What you and they are saying is essentially nonsensical, amorphous and vague and avoiding, purposely, the meat of the statement regarding the term agreement.
Bottom line there is no known agreement Xi must abide with regarding attacking Taiwan and Biden has made an incoherent statement which you and MSM are obfuscating and spinning.
Even in this last post you make no sense and seem weak on knowledge, history or comprehension of the One China Policy.
You use 1982 agreement (which is non-existent) as if it is equivalent to saying One China Policy. But one China Policy as it now exists began with the 1972 Shanghai Communique.
You seem confused. Ultimately you’re trying to make excuses for Biden and I’m not sure why.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Joe Biden said on Tuesday that he has spoken to Chinese President Xi Jinping about Taiwan and they agreed to abide by the "Taiwan agreement", as tensions have ratcheted up between Taipei and Beijing.
"I've spoken with Xi about Taiwan. We agree ... we'll abide by the Taiwan agreement," he said. "We made it clear that I don't think he should be doing anything other than abiding by the agreement."
Biden appeared to be referring to Washington's long-standing policy under which it officially recognizes Beijing rather than Taipei, and the Taiwan Relations Act, which makes clear that the U.S. decision to establish diplomatic ties with Beijing instead of Taiwan rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means.
While that act binds the United States to provide Taiwan with the means to defend itself, Washington only acknowledges China's stance that the island belongs to it and that there is "one China", and takes no position on Taiwan's sovereignty.
Taiwan's Foreign Ministry said it had sought clarification from the United States about Biden's comments, and were reassured U.S. policy towards Taiwan had not changed, the U.S. commitment to them was "rock solid" and that the U.S. will continue to help Taiwan maintain its
"Facing the Chinese government's military, diplomatic and economic threats, Taiwan and the United States have always maintained close and smooth communication channels," it said, noting recent U.S. comments of concern about China's activities.
The remarks to reporters at the White House - made after Biden's return from a trip to Michigan touting a spending package - come amid escalations in the Taiwan-China relationship.
China claims Taiwan as its own territory, which should be taken by force if necessary. Taiwan says it is an independent country and will defend its freedoms and democracy, blaming China for the tensions.
Taiwan has reported 148 Chinese air force planes in the southern and southwestern part of its air defense zone over a four-day period beginning on Friday, the same day China marked a key patriotic holiday, National Day. The United States urged China on Sunday to stop its military activities near Taiwan. "The United States is very concerned by the People's Republic of China's provocative military activity near Taiwan, which is destabilizing, risks miscalculations, and undermines regional peace and stability," State Department spokesperson Ned Price said in a statement on Sunday.
Biden also appeared to be referencing a 90-minute call he held with Xi on Sept. 9, their first talks in seven months, in which they discussed the need to ensure that competition between the world's two largest economies does not veer into conflict.
(Reporting by Jeff Mason; Writing and additional reporting by Alexandra Alper and David Brunnstrom, and Ben Blanchard in Taipei; Editing by Chris Reese, Leslie Adler and Lincoln Feast.)
“Here is the entire article, of which you posted like just the first two paragraphs of the article:”
I will say it again.
When I posted the article only the first two paragraphs were there.
The news source added the later part hours after I posted it.
I wonder if China realized what a giant sized target they made with that dam.
My worried is that if that was destroyed they would retaliate with nukes.
Biden appeared to be referring to Washington's long-standing policy under which it officially recognizes Beijing rather than Taipei, and the Taiwan Relations Act, which makes clear that the U.S. decision to establish diplomatic ties with Beijing instead of Taiwan rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means.That is a bipolar and schizophrenic agreement. Perfect for Biden.While that act binds the United States to provide Taiwan with the means to defend itself, Washington only acknowledges China's stance that the island belongs to it and that there is "one China", and takes no position on Taiwan's sovereignty.
America is on both sides of the argument. You can count on us.
The rest of that time was researching about the One China Policy, and the Taiwan Act, and then creating my response back with what I had found.
Now if it had been updated, I would think that Reuters would indicate it had been updated from yesterday, but it looks just as it did when I saw it this morning, and there is no indication from Reuters that the article has been updated. But if you say it was I'll take you word for it.
But really this back & forth is accomplishing nothing. Because I really have nothing left to offer on the topic.
What exactly are you looking for from me about this topic?
“What exactly are you looking for from me about this topic?”
Acknowledgement that Biden spoke nonsense.
There is no agreement. What said made no sense.
What you say can be easily summed up, and I do not disagree, that Biden probably meant that the status quo should continue - ie China won’t attack Taiwan, U.S. maintains One China Policy.
But he did not say that.
A couple months ago he said the U.S. had a mutual defense treaty with Taiwan, like we have with Japan, which is not true. It was true 40 plus years ago when Biden began his career but we left in mire than 40 years ago.
Biden has no idea what he is saying and you,mand journalists, needing to tell people what he appeared to mean does not let him off the hook for his statements.
Either he is referring to an agreement or he is not. If he is then it is a secret agreement that should be made public.
If there is no secret agreement he is unable to communicate at a basic fundamental level.
Yes. It’s nuts. Designed by Kissinger and meant to make him millions of dollars, which it does.
Trump and Pompeo rightly broke it. First ones to have the guts to do so in 40 years.
Biden is back to appeasing the ChiComs.
That's why people have to take a stab at what he is talking about. 🙂
Someone sent me a video of him speaking and he really is rambling the worse I've ever heard him do. At the end a young guy gets on and says; Who is running this country, it obviously isn't this guy.
It apparently came off of Tik-Tok or whatever it's called.
“That’s why people have to take a stab at what he is talking about.”
But within reason.
His term was clear “The Taiwan Agreement” — an agreement Xi should abide by.
There is no Taiwan Agreement between the U.S. and PRC. His statement was nonsense.
In trying to defend Biden or explain what he seemingly meant, that “The Taiwan Agreement” means the One China Policy or means the TRA is a stretch beyond reason.
The Taiwan Relations Act is an act of the United States Congress. Since the recognition of the People's Republic of China, the Act has defined the officially substantial but non-diplomatic relations between the people of the United States and the people of Taiwan.
One agreement that was unilaterally terminated by President Jimmy Carter upon the establishment of relations with the PRC was the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty. That treaty essentially prevented Red China from taking over the island of Taiwan.
The PRC aligned itself with the Third World countries rather than with the United States or the Soviet Union, engaging itself in various movements such as nuclear non-proliferation that would allow it to critique the superpowers. In the August 17th communique of 1982, the United States agreed to reduce arms sales to Taiwan. However, it also declared that it would not formally recognize PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan, as part of the Six Assurances offered to Taipei in 1982.
The Six Assurances are six key foreign policy principles of the United States regarding United States–Taiwan relations. They were passed as unilateral U.S. clarifications to the Third Communiqué between the United States and the People's Republic of China in 1982. They were intended to reassure both Taiwan and the United States Congress that the US would continue to support Taiwan even if it had earlier cut formal diplomatic relations. The assurances were originally proposed by the then Kuomintang (Chinese Nationalist Party) government of the Republic of China on Taiwan during negotiations between the U.S. and the People's Republic of China. The U.S. Reagan administration agreed to the assurances and informed the United States Congress of them in July 1982. Today, the Six Assurances are part of semi-formal guidelines used in conducting relations between the US and Taiwan. The assurances have been generally reaffirmed by successive U.S. administrations. Prior to 2016, they were purely informal, but in 2016, their formal content was adopted by the US House of Representatives in a non-binding resolution, upgrading their status to formal but not directly enforceable.
The 2016 Republican National Convention in the Republican Party Platform states "Our relations will continue to be based upon the provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act, and we affirm the Six Assurances given to Taiwan in 1982 by President Reagan. We oppose any unilateral steps by either side to alter the status quo in the Taiwan Straits on the principle that all issues regarding the island’s future must be resolved peacefully, through dialogue, and be agreeable to the people of Taiwan. If China were to violate those principles, the United States, in accord with the Taiwan Relations Act, will help Taiwan defend itself... As a loyal friend of America, Taiwan has merited our strong support, including free trade agreement status, the timely sale of defensive arms including technology to build diesel submarines...
So, as you can see it is a rather confusing mishmash of policies that have been cobbled together over many years to which the question begs, to what extent, if any, has the PRC agreed to the Taiwan Act. It's not really clear. So is China agreeing that it is bound, or are they just playing Biden? I guess that remains to be seen, but I trust neither Biden nor the CCP to live in agreement and live up to the Taiwan Act. It's nothing more than a weak diversion s far as I can see.
TRA is a U.S. law.
“...to what extent, if any, has the PRC agreed to the Taiwan Act. It’s not really clear. So is China agreeing that it is bound, or are they just playing Biden?”
China has nothing to do with our law, nor or they bound in any way to abide by it.
I’ll tell what to look at if you want to try to think what he could have meant, it does relate to the 1982 communique you mentioned, look at the Eagleburger to Lilly cable.
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.