Bush says does not support independence for Taiwan -(Bush Shafts Taiwan, mine)

Reuters ^ | 10-26-02

[tallhappy]

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush said on Friday the United States would use its influence to ensure China and Taiwan settle their differences peacefully and promised to make it clear to Taipei that Washington does not support independence.

In a news conference with Chinese President Jiang Zemin, Bush said the United States stood by the "one China" policy, which acknowledges that Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of China.

"The 'one China' policy means that the issue ought to be resolved peacefully," Bush said.

"We've got influence with some in the region. We intend to make sure that the issue is resolved peacefully, and that includes making it clear that we do not support independence," Bush added.

Taiwan's president, Chen Shui-bian, has voiced support for a referendum on formal independence from China.

The move outraged Beijing, which views the island as a renegade province and a linchpin in Sino-U.S. relations.

Beijing had hoped Bush would repeat a pledge not to back independence for Taiwan, which China says must eventually be reunified with the mainland, by force if necessary.

Nationalists headed by Chiang Kai-shek fled to Taiwan in 1949 after losing a civil war to Mao Zedong's communists. Washington shifted diplomatic recognition to Beijing in 1979.

But the United States has offered Taiwan the biggest arms package in a decade and Bush has pledged to do "whatever it takes" to help the democratically governed island protect itself.

Bush did not repeat that pledge at Friday's news conference.

But during a visit to China earlier this year, he said, "When my country makes an agreement, we stick with it, and there is (something) called the Taiwan Relations Act and I honour that act, which says we will help Taiwan defend herself if provoked."

China says it is seriously concerned about the U.S. warming to Taiwan under Bush and has called on Washington to halt military contacts and arms sales to the island.

[Jeff Head]

I believe an out and out statement by Bush against independence for Taiwan is a bad move. He should have maintained at least the status quo IMHO.

We supported Taiwan as the governmnet of all of China up until 1979. That was 30 years of support. We then changed to recognizing China with diplomatic relations, recognizing them in the UN and cutting off those same relations with Taiwan. It as a sorry time for freedom and liberty IMHO and sent a message to people's all over Asia ... a bad message.

Ever since, we have had a foggy, murky, unclear policy IMHO. One that said in essence ... there is only one China and Taiwan is part of it but only Taiwan can say when it wants to be part of it. This policy is two faced and pure political smoke to cove our desire to exploit Chinese cheap labor while making the best of the ROC's growing liberty and technological offerings. For some in this nation, some particular politicians and policy makes and think tanks ... the support for the mainland was also an ideological issue ... there are many here who are nothing but marxists themselves.

But, irrespective of that, we can't have it both ways forever. When it comes to how the United States should lean and to which side we should fall ... it is clear. The poeple and the principles being carried out in Taiwan right now are republican and liberty loving in nature. Those on the mainland are not. To keep faith even with President Bush's own stated policies, we should not rule out the ultimate solutionm for Taiwan's citizens ... their choice to be self-determining, independent and free.

He should have said nothing to this issue. What he did say comes across as appeasing the buthchers in Beijing IMHO.

The ROC has operatred as a free and independent nation for decades. They deserve it and we should support it instead of bowing down to, prostrating our corporate selves and placating the totalitarian/socio-fascists on the mainland. I have spent a LOT of time over there. The people in Taiwan, for the most part, love our style of government and would almost be our 51st state if we would let them.

I pray we will help them defend themselves when the time comes. I am afraid, with actions and statements like this, we will only insure that, that time comes sooner rather than later and that the mainland will implement some form of DRAGON'S FURY

[Quix]

I still fail to see what he said that was that new Tallhappy. BILLDO SAID AND *DID* LOTS WORSE.

And words in public especially from an American President can mean a lot of currency back home almost regardless of how sincerely they were stated.

[Quix]

Guess I've heard all of them essentially or explicitly say we did not and would not support Taiwan independence.

[MatthewViti]

"move along nothing to see here?" I'm sick apologists.

[Hostage]

Hong Long is already being hurt by the policies dictated from Beijing. In a capitalist world, your point is valid. In Beijing's view, the game is zero-sum. Anyone who believes otherwise is terribly naive.

[Jeff Head]

Well, I'm in volume III now ... and short of getting a few really radical French Canadians to try and kick us when we are down ... which I may consider ... I don't see any way it could happen in any official sense. They are fighting with us tooth and nail for survival by that point.

[Quix]

There is certainly a nationalistic, cultural brotherhood thread that's amazingly strong--especially in the face of us "barbarians."

But Chinese are amazingly independent individuals, too. I suppose I should have expected that but I didn't expect the degree of it. It's evidently a paradoxical but straightforward response to being pressed together with sooooooooo much traditionally expected conformity.

As individuals they can be fiercely independent. And there are plenty of ethnic groups that would love more independence. But that's one of Beijing's fierce paranoias. Allow Taiwan any independence and the rest will follow down the slippery slide and the disgrace of splitting the nation--losing sections--would be unbearable.

I don't know how far the nationalistic US CHINESE against the world would carry Taiwan people--in terms of their freedoms and options being threatened, most would probably fight fiercely.

But if they were convinced by contingencies that they would lose more to fight, they'd likely cave in overly easily. It's hard to guage the percentages of the population which would be on which side of such contingencies. I doubt most of the individuals could tell you unless and until it happened.

I've queried some 3,000+ university students about such issues. The convictions change some over time but seem mostly dependent on situational contingencies and winds of emotional, political moods.

They MOSTLY WANT TO BE LEFT ALONE to continue their lives more or less as they are. In recent years with the down economy, they seem fairly alarmed and depressed vis a vis China's economy stealing Taiwan's thunder and market share. They take their factories to China but still end up feeling mostly on the losing end.

[Quix]

I will say this--if it's any clue--The vast majority of Taiwanese taxi drivers are fiercely independent and are strongly for independence. And many of the common low level shop keepers as well. Once I was getting a chop/stamp and rubber stamp made for return mail address stamping.

Whether to say Taiwan or Taiwan, ROC was a question. The shop keeper had VERY STRONG CONVICTIONS THAT IT SHOULD BE JUST TAIWAN. To blazes with China.

[Quix]

Great point.

[Quix]

Our idiocy certainly does go well back before DILLDO AND SHRILLERY.

Thankfully, behind it all, somehow, at some point, God's will, will still be done.

Many Chinese old enough to remember--most old enough to remember--are thankful, appreciative, touched, deeply indebted to the U.S.

But there are idiots in China like DILLDO AND SHRILLERY. And some of them are in charge.

[Quix]

Any strategy with China will end up being a complex strategy.

China is a complex entity.

Even Mao confessed to Nixon's daughter that he was only able to change things a little only right around Beijing. I don't think Mao understood China overly well except that he knew the peasants had had enough of the corrupt government. Now the medicine is worse than the disease.

We ought not forget the corrupt Chinese gangs/mafia types either. They seem to transcend all boundaries. What was that novel in recent years--well done book about such.

[Quix]

I think it's wisdom to seek the most support possible to go into Iraq. Certainly he seems to think so. Most of the populace of most western countries seem to think so.

At least one would prefer not to have different battles on all sides at the same time.

Also, one says one thing at one time and then learns factors which moderate one's position. I think Bush has had MORE integrity in sticking with his convictions and statements than most recent Presidents other than Reagan. I realize that's not saying much.

[Quix]

Quite right.

I do suspect in SOME contingencies Bush would use them. But only if he felt he could and needed to give Beijing the finger and get away with it.

[Quix]

Actually, the depression and existential angst in Taiwan among all classes has gone up enormously in the last 2 years. You can blame it on the economy but many blame it in part on Beijing taking a lot of their economic market share and clout. They just feel it's hopeless to do anything about it in a definitive, lastingly effective way.

The U.S. is their only feeble hope for support and strength. Given DILLDO AND SHRILLERY, that's not an enormously comforting thing.

[Quix]

You are right.

But I suspect he did that to draw a line there instead of further on the Chinese side.

And, essentially--essentially--I don't think he said anything THAT different from what has been said and certainly implied plenty before.

[Quix]

My birth year, too. Yes, too much was lost too decisively then.

But we've flushed too much down the sewer to Beijing too needlessly since then, too.

And some of us HAVE complained a lot and loudly since then.

[Hila]

WHAT???

[Quix]

A lot of truth in that.

And money still talks big in China as it always has except for some years after the Long March. . . and perhaps after the cultural revolution.

But Beijing still has the capacity to close down virtually any enterprise and take it's leaders out and shoot them. And they don't exactly hesitate much if they decide to do it.

Corruption is still a huge problem. And the government doesn't really know how to deal with it because it's so rife with it. Alliances are still the way most things are done.

[Quix]

Slightly more upfront about it.

. . . in MOST cases.

[ffrancone]

If you look, you will find them. You might consider that General McArthur, one of America's greatest military minds regarded Taiwan as key to the Western Pacific and called it an "unsinkable aircraft carrier." Indeed, it is the key to the Western Pacific. It controls all the important shipping lanes to Japan and Korea from the Middle East and many of the shipping lanes to the Phillipines.

McArthur's comment is true today. For example, Japan went to war with the US over oil in WWII. It is more dependent on Middle Eastern oil today than it was in the 40's.

So the probable result of Chinese occupation of Taiwan is neutralization of Japan, Korea and the Phillipines. With that one stroke, China will have eliminated all locations from which western air assets may be conveniently deployed against much of China.

Sure, the public in China has been whipped up into nationalist pride and I do not discount the importance of pride in sustaining popular support for a policy. But the leadership would not be investing the billions it has put into arming to invade Taiwan (nor would it spend countless dollars whipping up that pride) unless Taiwan were so strategically important.