Full Version: Bush to Taiwan:
In what has to be the most startling PUBLIC example of the anti-democratic practices of United States Foreign Policy since the U.S. installed the Shah in Iran, George Bush has told Taiwan to reconsider independence.
Bush had this to say on a planned referendum to measure Taiwanese support for Independence:
Ignoring the Marxist analysis of this attitude I want to consider for a moment the broader implications of the man who is frequently called The Leader of the Free World saying that a country is wrong to pursue a democracy; one that the people and their government want. Does anyone else see a tremendous irony here.
It would certainly seem to me through the study of Low Intensity Democracy politics and Bush's latest remarks that the U.S. government doesn't really care about democracy, and in a way I suppose it has no reason to. But does the U.S. cross a line when it tries to dissuade a state from achieving a free society? Is democracy abroad only a viable goal when American interests are concerned, or does America (as a political entity) actually believe in democracy? (And I'm not talking about the U.S. installing democracy or liberating a country either.)
Bush had this to say on a planned referendum to measure Taiwanese support for Independence:
QUOTE
"The United States policy is one China. We oppose any unilateral decision by either China or Taiwan to change the status quo, and the comments and actions made by the leader of Taiwan indicate that he may be willing to make decisions unilaterally, to change the status quo, which we oppose."
Ignoring the Marxist analysis of this attitude I want to consider for a moment the broader implications of the man who is frequently called The Leader of the Free World saying that a country is wrong to pursue a democracy; one that the people and their government want. Does anyone else see a tremendous irony here.
It would certainly seem to me through the study of Low Intensity Democracy politics and Bush's latest remarks that the U.S. government doesn't really care about democracy, and in a way I suppose it has no reason to. But does the U.S. cross a line when it tries to dissuade a state from achieving a free society? Is democracy abroad only a viable goal when American interests are concerned, or does America (as a political entity) actually believe in democracy? (And I'm not talking about the U.S. installing democracy or liberating a country either.)
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Dec 9 2003, 12:33 PM)
Bush had this to say on a planned referendum to measure Taiwanese support for Independence
You are RIGHT. He HAD to say it. Why? Because China buys lots of Boeing and other American stuff: China Buys American
QUOTE
SEATTLE - China is kicking off a 'buy American' campaign. In an effort to narrow its trade surplus with the U.S., China is expected to announce deals to buy millions of dollars of U.S.-made automobiles and other products. Included on the list, Boeing will sign a long-expected agreement to sell 30 single-aisle 737s to Air China and four other of China's airlines. Along with the engines built by GE, the deal is worth about $2.4 billion.
Translation: It's all about ECONOMY!! If we support Taiwan, China won't like that. If they get unhappy, they may cancel their latest order of 30 Boeing 747's and go to Airbus. That would be a depressing thing for Boeing and the US economy. Also, they made deals with the Big Three of Detroit for bigger export deals. That'll sure help our widening Trade Deficet and the slipping Dollar. If they get unhappy, they will cancel the order with Detroit and go see the Big Three in Japan. Another blow to the US economy.
And Bush, who needs to make the US economy better for 2004, doesn't want to jepordize the economic "relationship" we have with China.
I think, though, in the background out of public view, the Bush Administration supports Taiwan's independence. We are still selling them arms aren't we?!
While I don't have a vast understanding of the situation I didn't see a change in the United States position on the situation. The only thing I see is that rather than being ambiguous about the matter Bush came out and said that it opposes both Tawain independence AND any action by China to dismantle the democratic proceedings in Taiwan. In doing this he eased tensions between the US and China by making it known that we aren't taking sides on the issue. I think the Chinese government felt that we would support Taiwan no matter what and Bush made it clear that that is not the case. It is my belief that to maintain our economical position in the world we need to have a strong relationship with China and easing any tensions helps that position. Like I said I'm not loaded with information on the issue and so I will hold off on any other statements until I do more research, but I don't think the US is really changing its postion, just making it more clear.
Why did he have to say anything? The U.S. has supported Taiwan in the past in the open? Regardless of U.S. foreign policy details (which have consistently supported a self-determining Taiwan without sovereignty) there is no need for Bush to publicly denounce efforts for democratization. I do however see your point and will spin it off into another discussion.
Man, you need to read my posts more closely. I said this:
(Not "HAD to say this" but "HAD this to say." Entirely different.)
Venom, I never said that there position had changed. In fact Bush is just saying in public what American law and policy has said for decades. But that doesn't change the fact that he is basically denouncing another countries efforts for democratization. Neither of you have really adressed my question either. I was not debating the economic merits of this decision, nor if that was the true origins. It is clear that it is. In fact I made it quite clear that I wanted to put an economic discussion to the side. What I asked is:
What is interesting about this scenario is that the U.S. isn't just failing to support a democracy, they are actively trying to repress it. It isn't the first time, but it's the first I can recall where the President has said so publicly.
QUOTE(GoAmerica)
You are RIGHT. He HAD to say it.
Man, you need to read my posts more closely. I said this:
QUOTE(Me)
Bush had this to say
(Not "HAD to say this" but "HAD this to say." Entirely different.)
Venom, I never said that there position had changed. In fact Bush is just saying in public what American law and policy has said for decades. But that doesn't change the fact that he is basically denouncing another countries efforts for democratization. Neither of you have really adressed my question either. I was not debating the economic merits of this decision, nor if that was the true origins. It is clear that it is. In fact I made it quite clear that I wanted to put an economic discussion to the side. What I asked is:
QUOTE
But does the U.S. cross a line when it tries to dissuade a state from achieving a free society?
QUOTE
Is democracy abroad only a viable goal when American interests are concerned, or does America (as a political entity) actually believe in democracy?
What is interesting about this scenario is that the U.S. isn't just failing to support a democracy, they are actively trying to repress it. It isn't the first time, but it's the first I can recall where the President has said so publicly.
QUOTE
I think, though, in the background out of public view, the Bush Administration supports Taiwan's independence. We are still selling them arms aren't we?!
Sorry for the double post, but just because we sell them arms doesn't mean we support their independence. It goes along with the fact that we don't support either position. We support the status quo. We sell arms to Taiwan so that they have a way to defend themselves if China decides to invade in order to force unification. If China was to do that then yes we will support the Taiwanese.
QUOTE(Venom @ Dec 9 2003, 03:17 PM)
If China was to do that then yes we will support the Taiwanese.
What evidence is there that this is true?
QUOTE(Venom @ Dec 9 2003, 01:17 PM)
QUOTE
I think, though, in the background out of public view, the Bush Administration supports Taiwan's independence. We are still selling them arms aren't we?!
Sorry for the double post, but just because we sell them arms doesn't mean we support their independence. It goes along with the fact that we don't support either position. We support the status quo. We sell arms to Taiwan so that they have a way to defend themselves if China decides to invade in order to force unification. If China was to do that then yes we will support the Taiwanese.
Which makes my point. The US really does support Taiwan because we are selling the arms. I'm sure that if push came to shove, the US would fight along side Taiwan if China tried to take it back
QUOTE
QUOTE (Venom @ Dec 9 2003, 03:17 PM)
If China was to do that then yes we will support the Taiwanese.
What evidence is there that this is true?
If China was to do that then yes we will support the Taiwanese.
What evidence is there that this is true?
Will this suffice?
QUOTE
GIBSON: I'm curious if you, in your own mind, feel that if Taiwan were attacked by China, do we have an obligation to defend the Taiwanese?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, we do …
GIBSON: And …
PRESIDENT BUSH: and the Chinese must understand that. Yes, I would.
GIBSON: With the full force of American military?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Whatever it took to help Taiwan defend theirself.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, we do …
GIBSON: And …
PRESIDENT BUSH: and the Chinese must understand that. Yes, I would.
GIBSON: With the full force of American military?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Whatever it took to help Taiwan defend theirself.
ABCNEWS interview with Bush April 25th, 2001
And no president has ever gone back on his word... Guys, can you please take a look at the questions I asked initially?
But does the U.S. cross a line when it tries to dissuade a state from achieving a free society?
Is democracy abroad only a viable goal when American interests are concerned, or does America (as a political entity) actually believe in democracy?
But does the U.S. cross a line when it tries to dissuade a state from achieving a free society?
Is democracy abroad only a viable goal when American interests are concerned, or does America (as a political entity) actually believe in democracy?
Bush seems to me to be enforcing a long-established American foreign policy in regards to China.
This is a relic of the Cold War that we actually started when we said that the Chiang regime of Taiwan was the official government of China and recognized it as such until 1973. Through that point Taiwan had China's vote in the UN at our insistence.
By 1973 we were under tremendous world pressure to give China its vote back in the UN and it was Nixon who had his historic visit to China (1972) that led to some new agreements with China.
In the resulting Shanghai Communique we signed onto this statement about Taiwan
Shanghai Communiqué
It was Nixon who signed this document recognizing the legal fiction of the day that Taiwan was part of China. We had promoted that idea in the hopes of having the Nationalists return to power in China. We signed onto an agreement that affirmed that position even though it undermined Taiwanese sovereignty.
However, Taiwan is effectively independent and we guarantee that independence. If Taiwan votes for independence that may spark a war and disrupt the entire Pacific region. We have no interest in that.
It is not my take that this is an anti-democratic position in that Taiwan is a democracy. But per our international agreement with China, Taiwan is not an official member of the community nation but a rogue province of China.
This is a relic of the Cold War that we actually started when we said that the Chiang regime of Taiwan was the official government of China and recognized it as such until 1973. Through that point Taiwan had China's vote in the UN at our insistence.
By 1973 we were under tremendous world pressure to give China its vote back in the UN and it was Nixon who had his historic visit to China (1972) that led to some new agreements with China.
In the resulting Shanghai Communique we signed onto this statement about Taiwan
Shanghai Communiqué
QUOTE
The U.S. side declared: The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. With this prospect in mind, it affirms the ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all U.S. forces and military installations from Taiwan. In the meantime, it will progressively reduce its forces and military installations on Taiwan as the tension in the area diminishes.
It was Nixon who signed this document recognizing the legal fiction of the day that Taiwan was part of China. We had promoted that idea in the hopes of having the Nationalists return to power in China. We signed onto an agreement that affirmed that position even though it undermined Taiwanese sovereignty.
However, Taiwan is effectively independent and we guarantee that independence. If Taiwan votes for independence that may spark a war and disrupt the entire Pacific region. We have no interest in that.
It is not my take that this is an anti-democratic position in that Taiwan is a democracy. But per our international agreement with China, Taiwan is not an official member of the community nation but a rogue province of China.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Dec 9 2003, 01:51 PM)
And no president has ever gone back on his word... Guys, can you please take a look at the questions I asked initially?
But does the U.S. cross a line when it tries to dissuade a state from achieving a free society?
Is democracy abroad only a viable goal when American interests are concerned, or does America (as a political entity) actually believe in democracy?
But does the U.S. cross a line when it tries to dissuade a state from achieving a free society?
Is democracy abroad only a viable goal when American interests are concerned, or does America (as a political entity) actually believe in democracy?
Taiwan is a Democracy. link Our military involvement in its quest for "independence" could very well mean WWIII.
Another discussion in relation to Taiwan on this board...
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...?showtopic=4055
I actually think that the main focal point of this was to declare that the US interests are for the status quo to remain unchanged. In the other thread there are treaties the US has entered into to aid Taiwan should a military conflict ensue. These are hard documented facts not just statements made from a president.
As for the comments dissuading independence, I am not sure what impact this statement really has here. I think it is a calculated political statement that allows both sides to be happy, but sends the message the US does not want trouble in the region. I am currently struggling with this stand and then the stand we took in Iraq to make it a democracy. Seems to be something I am missing.....
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...?showtopic=4055
I actually think that the main focal point of this was to declare that the US interests are for the status quo to remain unchanged. In the other thread there are treaties the US has entered into to aid Taiwan should a military conflict ensue. These are hard documented facts not just statements made from a president.
As for the comments dissuading independence, I am not sure what impact this statement really has here. I think it is a calculated political statement that allows both sides to be happy, but sends the message the US does not want trouble in the region. I am currently struggling with this stand and then the stand we took in Iraq to make it a democracy. Seems to be something I am missing.....
QUOTE
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (
a defined territory; © government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other states.
There can be no question that Taiwan has a permanent population and a government. Its territory may not be exactly defined, considering that a dispute over the Penghu (Pescadores) Achipelago, and the Jinmen and Mazu islands would almost certainly erupt between China and Taiwan, should the latter ever become unquestionably a state. But this is not fatal, as precedents exist, such as in the case of Israel, of a state coming into being with territorial disputes with its neighbours. The problem is with the last element.
The capacity to enter into relations with other states is both a prerequisite and a consequence of statehood because, until a body politic is accepted by established states as a state, it is prevented from entering into diplomatic relations even if it is willing and capable to do so. This brings us to the international law of recognition, which is the first and critical step for any prospective state to win an international personality.
Recognition is really two-fold: recognition of the state and recognition of the government, although they are typically done at the same time. Taiwan as a state has never been and is still not recognized by any state. Until it gets such recognition, it is moot to talk about its membership in the United Nations. But the government in Taipei was once recognized by most of the world and is still recognized by close to 30 countries as the government of the Republic of China, which presumably covers all of China, including the mainland. And it was in that capacity that the Taipei government once had a seat in the UN as a member as well as a permanent member of its Security Council. Yet, by UN resolution, the Republic of China has been replaced by the People's Republic of China, and as far as the UN is concerned, the Republic of China that ruled all China has ceased to exist. More on this later.
a defined territory; © government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other states.There can be no question that Taiwan has a permanent population and a government. Its territory may not be exactly defined, considering that a dispute over the Penghu (Pescadores) Achipelago, and the Jinmen and Mazu islands would almost certainly erupt between China and Taiwan, should the latter ever become unquestionably a state. But this is not fatal, as precedents exist, such as in the case of Israel, of a state coming into being with territorial disputes with its neighbours. The problem is with the last element.
The capacity to enter into relations with other states is both a prerequisite and a consequence of statehood because, until a body politic is accepted by established states as a state, it is prevented from entering into diplomatic relations even if it is willing and capable to do so. This brings us to the international law of recognition, which is the first and critical step for any prospective state to win an international personality.
Recognition is really two-fold: recognition of the state and recognition of the government, although they are typically done at the same time. Taiwan as a state has never been and is still not recognized by any state. Until it gets such recognition, it is moot to talk about its membership in the United Nations. But the government in Taipei was once recognized by most of the world and is still recognized by close to 30 countries as the government of the Republic of China, which presumably covers all of China, including the mainland. And it was in that capacity that the Taipei government once had a seat in the UN as a member as well as a permanent member of its Security Council. Yet, by UN resolution, the Republic of China has been replaced by the People's Republic of China, and as far as the UN is concerned, the Republic of China that ruled all China has ceased to exist. More on this later.
Can Taiwan join the United Nations?
This is a followup to my last post. Taiwan is self-governing but in a very strange position in international law. I think this Bush position is an attempt to maintain the status quo, but that status quo has been no war between Taiwan and China since Mao drove Chiang off the mainland.
QUOTE
Why did he have to say anything?
This is the international podium...that is what you do with it...you say things on it...and often what you have to say means a lot of things to a lot of different people all around the world. The US supports the STATUS QUO. If it was China being the aggressor in this situation and wanting to push for change than I would imagine the American president would climb back on that international podium and say something.
If Taiwan pushes this issue and makes China feel the need to take military action...whose men will die? Americans...again..perhaps!?
I said it in the last thread on this topic..Taiwan has NO independence with China or with the US. While she willingly allows for the US to openly defend and protect her she must realize that she is relinquishing control to the US. So the US has the right to dictate such things. If she does not want our protection so be it...say so. Somehow I don't think her people would prefer the US being out of the picture.
Besides this is China's reward...she helped us with North Korea (THANK YOU CHINA!!) and so we lent some help..by saying something..to Taiwan. You should be rejoicing that two of the major nuclear superpowers of the world are on peaceful and cooperative terms
World peace should be everyone's main goal.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Dec 9 2003, 02:51 PM)
Guys, can you please take a look at the questions I asked initially?
But does the U.S. cross a line when it tries to dissuade a state from achieving a free society?
But does the U.S. cross a line when it tries to dissuade a state from achieving a free society?
Yes, but that is not the case here.
QUOTE
Is democracy abroad only a viable goal when American interests are concerned, or does America (as a political entity) actually believe in democracy?
We actually believe in Democracy. China has us by the shorthairs on this one though.
If we publicly support Taiwan, we are jeprodizing a major trade partnership. It's all economics and it stinks
The US will defend Taiwan if they declare Independence and China steps one foot onto the island. The US, staying out of this, is very cowardly. If we are going to be a superpower, we need to get into China's face and tell them to just try. If China attacks the US for getting in the way, they will regret ever doing so.
I agree with Eeyore.
Bush is simply re-affirming existing US policy (for good or bad...)
China and Taiwan are the same country by international standards. There are separatists in Taiwan (and have been for decades).
The US wants to avoid armed conflict at all costs. It wants to maintain the status quo. The mainland Chinese are not interfering with the democratic process in Taiwan.
What Bush is really saying is that this situation must be resolved (peacefully) by both sides reaching a mutual agreement. That is the only way to avoid armed conflict.
I don't see anything anti-democratic here.
Now, were China to invade Taiwan and Bush did nothing (especially after all the rhetoric about defending Taiwan...) then there would be a problem.
Bush is simply re-affirming existing US policy (for good or bad...)
China and Taiwan are the same country by international standards. There are separatists in Taiwan (and have been for decades).
The US wants to avoid armed conflict at all costs. It wants to maintain the status quo. The mainland Chinese are not interfering with the democratic process in Taiwan.
What Bush is really saying is that this situation must be resolved (peacefully) by both sides reaching a mutual agreement. That is the only way to avoid armed conflict.
I don't see anything anti-democratic here.
Now, were China to invade Taiwan and Bush did nothing (especially after all the rhetoric about defending Taiwan...) then there would be a problem.
QUOTE
The US will defend Taiwan if they declare Independence and China steps one foot onto the island. The US, staying out of this, is very cowardly. If we are going to be a superpower, we need to get into China's face and tell them to just try. If China attacks the US for getting in the way, they will regret ever doing so.
I don't believe the US will defend Taiwan if they declare independence. Bush said that they don't support a unilateral step in that direction. Call it cowadice call it a smart move. GoAmerica says that China would regret it if they attacked the US, well I think the world would regret it. Any conflict would almost certainly involve the use of Nukes and both countries have enough to destroy the entire earth. I think taking a moderate stance on the issue is what the US will do and the most prudent option. The one China, two systems has worked and theres no reason it can not contine to.
This also obviously has an economic spin to it. The world is headed towards, what the author of the book I am currently reading calls, the market-state. Economic interests are paramount. Is this good or bad. That is a topic for another thread.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Dec 9 2003, 12:33 PM)
Is democracy abroad only a viable goal when American interests are concerned, or does America (as a political entity) actually believe in democracy?
Our ideals do not match reality. Remember the president lecturing the middle east about needing to be more democratic? He certainly didn't mention anything about Saudi Arabia, which has more ties to 9/11 than Iraq could ever dream of having. Taiwan's interest isn't ours because we would then have to deal with the East Asian behemoth that is China. We don't want to tackle them, since we are currently engaged in other conflicts. If we were truly democratic, we'd encourage them and try to strong arm China about allowing others to have self-determination.
QUOTE
We actually believe in Democracy. China has us by the shorthairs on this one though.
If we publicly support Taiwan, we are jeprodizing a major trade partnership. It's all economics and it stinks
The US will defend Taiwan if they declare Independence and China steps one foot onto the island. The US, staying out of this, is very cowardly. If we are going to be a superpower, we need to get into China's face and tell them to just try. If China attacks the US for getting in the way, they will regret ever doing so.
If we publicly support Taiwan, we are jeprodizing a major trade partnership. It's all economics and it stinks
The US will defend Taiwan if they declare Independence and China steps one foot onto the island. The US, staying out of this, is very cowardly. If we are going to be a superpower, we need to get into China's face and tell them to just try. If China attacks the US for getting in the way, they will regret ever doing so.
But, more so than any other country, America is a super power because it puts its economy first - so is it possible to be both a moral guide for other countries whilst retaining super-power status? A look at history suggests that all the countries that have been super powers have made claims to hold the most virtuous of countries, whilst taking morally dubious actions abroad in order to retain global dominance....could the same thing be happening to America?
Drifting from the point, but I think the Taiwan underlines the fact that sometimes being the good guy can run contradictory to your country's interest.
I do not believe the Bush Administration's stance on Taiwan is undemocratic at all. He has stated that the US would defend Taiwanese democracy if China attempted to destroy it.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...25/221146.shtml
China threatens to invade Taiwan if it declares independence. Considering that both the US and China possess large stockpiles of nuclear weapons, a conflict between the two should be avoided at all costs. If peace and Taiwanese sovereignty can be maintained by playing make believe to appease the PRC, so be it. Taiwan is an independant, democratic nation regardless of whether it declares itself as such.
Popular opinion in Taiwan also supports maintaining the status quo with China.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Taiwan-independence
QUOTE
Asked if the United States would come to Taiwan's aid if China attacked, Bush said it would.
``Yes, we do ... and the Chinese must understand that. Yes, I would,'' Bush said. Pressed for details on what that meant militarily, he said, ``Whatever it took to help Taiwan defend theirself.''
``Yes, we do ... and the Chinese must understand that. Yes, I would,'' Bush said. Pressed for details on what that meant militarily, he said, ``Whatever it took to help Taiwan defend theirself.''
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...25/221146.shtml
China threatens to invade Taiwan if it declares independence. Considering that both the US and China possess large stockpiles of nuclear weapons, a conflict between the two should be avoided at all costs. If peace and Taiwanese sovereignty can be maintained by playing make believe to appease the PRC, so be it. Taiwan is an independant, democratic nation regardless of whether it declares itself as such.
Popular opinion in Taiwan also supports maintaining the status quo with China.
QUOTE
Opinion polls suggest that between 70 to 80 percent of Taiwanese support the "status quo" which is to leave Taiwan's status exactly the way that it is. One advantage of this option is that it avoids the necessity of defining exactly what Taiwan's status really is.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Taiwan-independence
QUOTE
Is democracy abroad only a viable goal when American interests are concerned, or does America (as a political entity) actually believe in democracy?
Yes, it is. That's what governments do. They act within their own best interests, not in the best interests of someone else. I know it sounds kind of barbaric, but that's just the way things are done.
The term "democracy" was popularized by Woodrow Wilson years back, and seems to have caught on with the latest set of governments, as it sounds quite good.
QUOTE
But does the U.S. cross a line when it tries to dissuade a state from achieving a free society?
I think it does. I personally support action to be taken on China, and for them to liberalize currency flow, tarrifs and so forth.
EDIT: By the way the Shah has had such a position in Iran for centuries, nor do I think policies in the late 70's have any great bearing on policies 35 years later.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.