# After the crisis, Dubya overturns Taiwan doctrine **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 26, 2001, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-the-crisis-dubya-overturns-taiwan-doctrine/63437 "2001-04-26T20:31:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2001, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-the-crisis-dubya-overturns-taiwan-doctrine/63437/21 "2001-04-28T14:12:07Z")
I wonder how many people who call Taiwan a “renegade” or “breakaway” province of China realize that Taiwan was only a part of China for 4 years out of the last 106? Or that it was only part of 5000-year-old China for about 300 years before that? Or that it was the Communists who rebelled against the Kuomintang, not vice versa? Or that Taiwan has its own indigenous culture, history, and people? Taiwan IS functionally independent, has been for over 50 years, and there’s no need to declare it. If they did, the declaration would have to take the position of recognizing the PRC as the mainland government while simply observing their own continuity as the rightful government of China (wait, Lee Teng-Hui already did that, 10-15 years ago!). The status quo is a little uncomfortable, sure, but it’s been stable and beneficial all around, and has (had?) been continuing to develop that way. There was and is absolutely no need for Bush to be let free of his leash long enough to threaten it. That was as reckless as his earlier decision NOT to engage North Korea in any further peace discussions, despite Kim’s overtures - maybe that faith-based missile defense he wants has to have somebody else’s missiles to aim at, right? The return of the old Cold Warrior mentalities to power is a little scary, not just sad. Bush has the opportunity to be a man of peace, but that requires confidence and understanding and commitment. Instead, he’s pursuing an international policy based on ignorance and fear, and people are going to die for it. ---
**Author:** ![Zarathustra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/898d66/32.png) [@Zarathustra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zarathustra)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2001, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-the-crisis-dubya-overturns-taiwan-doctrine/63437/22 "2001-04-28T14:14:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by rjung \* > So if – and I’m being _very_ hypothetical here – if Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and North and South Carolina suddenly decide to cede from the United States as the New Confederate Union, and the Chinese government offered to sell them nuclear weapons to defend themselves from “Yankee aggression”, you’d be entirely in favor of it? > > (Yeah, I know, there’s no way this is _ever_ going to happen. I just wanted to paint the Taiwan situation from a different POV) > \*\* Taiwan has never been ruled by the Communist regime in Beijing. Except for a brief, post-WWII interlude, the island has been politically separate from the mainland for over a century now. If you want to cobble together ridiculous analogies, why not try this? The Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 made it rather clear that the Canadians didn’t want to be part of the new upstart regime to the south. The US for its part never succeeded in holding onto any Canadian territory (AFAIK), but imagine that as late as the Civil War era, Washington DC was demanding that Canadians return to the motherland. Wouldn’t that make the US look like a bunch of jerks? If that were the case, yeah, I think the Canadians would deserve a little help from whatever quarters were willing. ---
**Author:** ![Zarathustra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/898d66/32.png) [@Zarathustra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zarathustra)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2001, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-the-crisis-dubya-overturns-taiwan-doctrine/63437/23 "2001-04-28T14:29:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > **I wonder how many people who call Taiwan a “renegade” or “breakaway” province of China realize that Taiwan was only a part of China for 4 years out of the last 106? Or that it was only part of 5000-year-old China for about 300 years before that? Or that it was the Communists who rebelled against the Kuomintang, not vice versa? Or that Taiwan has its own indigenous culture, history, and people?** Who is failing to recognize this, except the regime in Beijing? > [@](#): > > **Taiwan IS functionally independent, has been for over 50 years, and there’s no need to declare it.** Then why doesn’t the Beijing regime recognize this state of affairs? > [@](#): > > **The status quo is a little uncomfortable, sure, but it’s been stable and beneficial all around, and has (had?) been continuing to develop that way.** Exactly who do you think has been threatening the status quo, if not the mainland? > [@](#): > > **There was and is absolutely no need for Bush to be let free of his leash long enough to threaten it.** Um, do you think maybe he wants to convey America’s determination that the status quo continue stably and comfortably? > [@](#): > > **That was as reckless as his earlier decision NOT to engage North Korea in any further peace discussions, despite Kim’s overtures** Yeah, and while Clinton was being so warm and fuzzy toward Kim Jong-il–sending the DPRK oil and food and money–the tottering regime in Pyongyang went ahead and [built a couple of nuclear weapons](http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010418/wl/korea_usa_dc_1.html). Good call, Bill! > [@](#): > > \*\* - maybe that faith-based missile defense he wants has to have somebody else’s missiles to aim at, right?\*\* Well, thanks to Bill, it looks like we might have our hands full with North Korea alone. > [@](#): > > **The return of the old Cold Warrior mentalities to power is a little scary, not just sad. Bush has the opportunity to be a man of peace, but that requires confidence and understanding and commitment. Instead, he’s pursuing an international policy based on ignorance and fear, and people are going to die for it.** Baldwin, Atlee, and Chamberlain might very well have said the same about Churchill, that warmonger. But it’s history who judges. ---
**Author:** ![Ned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/848f3c/32.png) [@Ned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ned)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2001, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-the-crisis-dubya-overturns-taiwan-doctrine/63437/24 "2001-04-28T15:38:45Z")
> [@](#): > > Who is failing to recognize this, except the regime in Beijing? Pretty much the whole world. But lets keep in mind that not long ago it was Taiwan that was recognized as the government of all of China. > [@](#): > > Then why doesn’t the Beijing regime recognize this state of affairs? They don’t seem to want to and nothing anyone says can convince them to see it that way. Want to go talk some sense into them? > [@](#): > > Exactly who do you think has been threatening the status quo, if not the mainland? Taiwan, independance was a major issue last election. > [@](#): > > Um, do you think maybe he wants to convey America’s determination that the status quo continue stably and comfortably? No. He just fucked up. I won’t bother justifying this as it gets clearer in reports from the white house every day. ---
**Author:** ![Zarathustra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/898d66/32.png) [@Zarathustra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zarathustra)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2001, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-the-crisis-dubya-overturns-taiwan-doctrine/63437/25 "2001-04-28T17:54:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ned \* > > > [@](#): > > > > Who is failing to recognize this, except the regime in Beijing? > > Pretty much the whole world. But lets keep in mind that not long ago it was Taiwan that was recognized as the government of all of China. If it weren’t for fear of Beijing’s temper tantrums, how many countries would even think twice about recognizing a government that meets all the traditional qualifications for statehood and constitutes somewhere around the world’s thirteenth largest economy? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Then why doesn’t the Beijing regime recognize this state of affairs? > > They don’t seem to want to and nothing anyone says can convince them to see it that way. Want to go talk some sense into them? The issue at hand is whether we can talk “sense” into them insofar as they can come to understand that if they try to resolve the Taiwan question through force, they will get one hell of a bloody nose. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Exactly who do you think has been threatening the status quo, if not the mainland? > > Taiwan, independance was a major issue last election. Again, I ask you for a cite. I was there, and none of the major candidates were advocating independence. Just because these events are happening halfway across the world, doesn’t mean that you can be an intellectual slob and keep pulling these “facts” out of your ass like this. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Um, do you think maybe he wants to convey America’s determination that the status quo continue stably and comfortably? > [@](#): > > No. He just fucked up. I won’t bother justifying this as it gets clearer in reports from the white house every day. Look, you guys who want to spend the next four to eight years foaming at the mouth about how GWB is too “dumb” to be President–well, rave all you want, and I’ll simply discount your opinions as the lunatic ravings they are. The fact is, the whole administration has been dropping hints of a harder line on Taiwan almost since the inauguration. Anybody remember Colin Powell referring to Taiwan as the “Republic of China”? I can assure you, none of these things have been mere slips of the tongue. You can disagree with the strategy, but you’re deluding yourself if you think all this is inadvertant. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2001, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-the-crisis-dubya-overturns-taiwan-doctrine/63437/26 "2001-04-28T18:19:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zarathustra \* > If it weren’t for fear of Beijing’s temper tantrums, how many countries would even think twice about recognizing a government that meets all the traditional qualifications for statehood and constitutes somewhere around the world’s thirteenth largest economy? Bear in mind that the country in question has not itself proclaimed independence. What is there to “recognize”? > [@](#): > > The issue at hand is whether we can talk “sense” into them insofar as they can come to understand that if they try to resolve the Taiwan question through force, they will get one hell of a bloody nose. Where do you get the idea that force is being seriously considered? Not from the makeup of the PRC military, or from the last 50 years of opportunity they’ve had, surely. Nor from the PRC’s increasing dependence on Taiwan business deals. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Exactly who do you think has been threatening the status quo, if not the mainland? > > Taiwan, independance was a major issue last election. Again, I ask you for a cite. I was there, and none of the major candidates were advocating independence. [/quote] You couldn’t have been there very long. Chen Shui-Bian was elected President last year on that very platform, which has always been a key part of Democratic People’s Party doctrine. > [@](#): > > Just because these events are happening halfway across the world, doesn’t mean that you can be an intellectual slob and keep pulling these “facts” out of your ass like this. Quite so, my friend. A few minutes on Google would do you wonders. > [@](#): > > Look, you guys who want to spend the next four to eight years foaming at the mouth about how GWB is too “dumb” to be President–well, rave all you want, and I’ll simply discount your opinions as the lunatic ravings they are. Some people come to this board looking for debate, thought, and enlightenment. But suit yourself. > [@](#): > > The fact is, the whole administration has been dropping hints of a harder line on Taiwan almost since the inauguration. No kidding. Who do you think hasn’t noticed? And didn’t that start during the campaign, not since the inauguration? > [@](#): > > Anybody remember Colin Powell referring to Taiwan as the “Republic of China”? Ahem, that IS the country’s official name. Check the visa stamp on your passport to be sure. Hint: That’s what the letters “R.O.C.” stand for. > [@](#): > > I can assure you, none of these things have been mere slips of the tongue. You can disagree with the strategy, but you’re deluding yourself if you think all this is inadvertant. \*\* On that, you may be right, but that’s a further indictment of Bush’s “vision thing”. It takes away an excuse that can be made for him. Remember that the success of diplomacy depends as much on what you refrain from saying as on what you say. In that regard, Ned’s right: even if Bush meant it, he fucked up by saying it. ---
**Author:** ![Zarathustra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/898d66/32.png) [@Zarathustra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zarathustra)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2001, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-the-crisis-dubya-overturns-taiwan-doctrine/63437/27 "2001-04-28T18:46:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > Where do you get the idea that force is being seriously considered? Not from the makeup of the PRC military, or from the last 50 years of opportunity they’ve had, surely. Nor from the PRC’s increasing dependence on Taiwan business deals. [/quote] Being there in 1996, when Beijing was test-firing missiles a couple of dozen miles offshore of Taiwan’s two major port cities in an effort to spoil the island’s first-ever democratic presidential election. Watching the news at that time, hearing PLA generals’ heavy-handed hints concerning neutron bombs and the US having to give up Los Angeles. Reading of Beijing’s installation of several hundred more missiles in Fujian province right across the Taiwan Strait in the five years since. Learning of China’s efforts to acquire a blue-water navy, including an aircraft carrier. Perusing accounts of the mainland’s semi-annual military exercises against a faux enemy obviously modeled on Taiwan. Having drinks with my reporter friends in Taipei, including one or two guys who worked with _Jane’s Defense Weekly_. Oh, it’s definitely being _considered_, my naive little friend. > [@](#): > > You couldn’t have been there very long. Chen Shui-Bian was elected President last year on that very platform, which has always been a key part of Democratic People’s Party doctrine. The **Democratic Progressive Party** has long held Taiwan independence as a key part of its platform–and Chen Shui-bian specifically repudiated that part of the platform when he was running for president. Before and since the election, he has consistently referred to Taiwan as “The Republic of China” and himself as President thereof, which is no small concession for a former independence activist. > [@](#): > > Quite so, my friend. A few minutes on Google would do you wonders. **You** get your ideas from Google. I get my facts from having lived there for the better part of a decade, thank you very much. I get my facts from the contacts I’ve cultivated there during that length of time. > [@](#): > > On that, you may be right, but that’s a further indictment of Bush’s “vision thing”. It takes away an excuse that can be made for him. Remember that the success of diplomacy depends as much on what you refrain from saying as on what you say. In that regard, Ned’s right: even if Bush meant it, he fucked up by saying it. Nah, in diplomacy, I think there’s much to be said for simply taking the gloves off. Carter’s oh-so-careful detente language got us the invasion of Afghanistan, whereas Reagan’s “Evil Empire” got us the fall of the Berlin Wall. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2001, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-the-crisis-dubya-overturns-taiwan-doctrine/63437/28 "2001-04-28T18:53:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > \*\* > Where do you get the idea that force is being seriously considered [by the PRC against Taiwan]? \*\* To mention two places – The fact that the PRC has missiles aimed at Taiwan right now. The fact that the PRC recently conducted naval military exercises near Taiwan. BTW nobody has yet posted a way that the US was hurt by a strong Presidential indication that we won’t tolerate a military attack on Taiwan. However, for those who argue that we need a policy of ambiguity, note that Bush achieved this goal when he changed his statement. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2001, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-the-crisis-dubya-overturns-taiwan-doctrine/63437/29 "2001-04-28T19:47:06Z")
Zarathustra is right on target. I also have spent quite a bit of time in Taiwan and the Mainland, and anyone who thinks the PRC wouldn’t bomb Taiwan at the first hint of declared independence is naive. Like Zarathustra said, China’s military has been beefing up during the past decade. I think that the past conciliatory policy toward China has been a mistake, especially allowing the PRC to dictate our foreign policy by using threats to keep the US governemnt from having formal talks with Taiwan and, because of their Tibet policy, with the Dalai Lama. Bush, despite himself, actually did the right thing by saying we’ll defend Taiwan. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2001, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-the-crisis-dubya-overturns-taiwan-doctrine/63437/30 "2001-04-28T20:22:50Z")
Time to supply some more facts to a person who can’t be bothered to find them himself, or consider the possibility that there may be some relevant ones he’s unaware of: [QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Zarathustra \* \*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > Being there in 1996, when Beijing was test-firing missiles a couple of dozen miles offshore of Taiwan’s two major port cities in an effort to spoil the island’s first-ever democratic presidential election. \*\* You stated the objective yourself. Doesn’t translate into actual invasion plans, though. > [@](#): > > Watching the news at that time, hearing PLA generals’ heavy-handed hints concerning neutron bombs and the US having to give up Los Angeles. Please. How much credibility do you normally give the official PRC government news agency? > [@](#): > > Reading of Beijing’s installation of several hundred more missiles in Fujian province right across the Taiwan Strait in the five years since. Been missiles there for 50 years. Means what? > [@](#): > > Learning of China’s efforts to acquire a blue-water navy, including an aircraft carrier. Assuming you’re referring to the scrapped Soviet carrier Minsk, they’re turning that into a friggin’ _museum_. Check Pudong next time you’re in Shanghai and you can take a tour. It has the same military capability as the USS Intrepid - or maybe less, since the I used to be effective. > [@](#): > > Perusing accounts of the mainland’s semi-annual military exercises against a faux enemy obviously modeled on Taiwan. Every military in the world has exercises. Hell, we probably have wargamed the invasion of Cuba so many times the officers are sick of it - but those aren’t “plans” in the sense that anyone needs to expect it to happen. [quote] Having drinks with my reporter friends in Taipei, including one or two guys who worked with _Jane’s Defense Weekly_. [quote] Wow. Drinks. And with a few other Westerners who went there with the same preconceptions you did. Learned a lot, did you? Ever take the time to actually talk with any of the real people who live this stuff? I have. > [@](#): > > Oh, it’s definitely being _considered_, my naive little friend. About as seriously as the next round of drinks was being considered. > [@](#): > > The **Democratic Progressive Party** has long held Taiwan independence as a key part of its platform–and Chen Shui-bian specifically repudiated that part of the platform when he was running for president. You’re right about the name - my mental typo. But Chen didn’t disavow the platform that got him elected until he got pressured to (presumably by Clinton) - even then, he just said he wouldn’t press for it _yet_. > [@](#): > > Before and since the election, he has consistently referred to Taiwan as “The Republic of China” and himself as President thereof, which is no small concession for a former independence activist. What concession is it to refer to one’s own country by it’s own official name? Now, in terms of determining the actual (as opposed to rhetorical) intentions of the PRC toward Taiwan, I put a lot more store in the increasing numbers of cross-strait business ties, continuing loosening of travel restrictions (btw, did you know they’re negotiating direct airline links even now?), decreasing restrictions on the flow of information into the PRC, the very fact that they have had 50 years to try it and never have, and the list is endless. The military saber-rattling you’re referring to is, I’m convinced, for show, with the primary target being the people of the PRC itself. Every assessment of PLA capability I’ve seen, most notably the Rand Corp.'s review last year, has concluded that the PLA represents a serious threat only to the Chinese people (and to their own troops, considering the state of their equipment). It’s a large enough and complicated enough place and situation that you can find facts to support any position you start with. But intellectual honesty requires a little more than that, my friend. > [@](#): > > Nah, in diplomacy, I think there’s much to be said for simply taking the gloves off.\*\* But what is being gained by it? Who is going to die for it? Are you ready to go? Why screw with a status quo that has been working well, anyway, unless it’s out of the ignorance and fear displayed Bush and his fellow right-wing belligerents, most of whom ducked their own responsibilities when it was their turn? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2001, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-the-crisis-dubya-overturns-taiwan-doctrine/63437/31 "2001-04-28T20:26:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by goboy \* > \*\*Zarathustra is right on target. I also have spent quite > …allowing the PRC to dictate our foreign policy by using threats to keep the US governemnt from having formal talks with Taiwan and, because of their Tibet policy, with the Dalai Lama. \*\* When has the US government ever not been able to have talks with either Taiwan or the Dalai Lama? Or with anyone else, for that matter? ---
**Author:** ![Zarathustra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/898d66/32.png) [@Zarathustra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zarathustra)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2001, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-the-crisis-dubya-overturns-taiwan-doctrine/63437/32 "2001-04-28T21:02:09Z")
::Zarathustra throws up hands:: You win, Elvis. My nearly ten years living in country, my fluency in Chinese, my fairly extensive range of contacts with residents and businessmen and political figures in Taiwan (and, to a more limited extent, Hong Kong and China), are as nought compared with what you read in some magazine, and mere trifles compared with the numerous e-mails and conversations you’ve swapped with a couple of exchange students. I humbly bow my head before your expertise. ---
**Author:** ![Mekhazzio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b38774/32.png) [@Mekhazzio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mekhazzio)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2001, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-the-crisis-dubya-overturns-taiwan-doctrine/63437/33 "2001-04-28T21:14:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zarathustra \* > **Learning of China’s efforts to acquire a blue-water navy, including an aircraft carrier. Perusing accounts of the mainland’s semi-annual military exercises against a faux enemy obviously modeled on Taiwan.** It would be twenty years before they can put any aircraft carrier to good use…the one they’re getting now is just a museum, and is really the best use they could make of it. They just don’t have the support needed for a functioning CVBG (crew, aircraft, supporting ships, etc) They can’t possibly protect it, or even exploit it well due to the lack of decent carrier-based attack aircraft, and it would be a huge target. They would be much better off using several smaller ships and land-based aircraft instead. As for your faux-Taiwan, I seem to recall the US military training rather extensively against a faux-Soviet enemy…does this mean we were seriously contemplating attacking them? …hmm, well I suppose there were enough war hawks that this may not be a great example. > [@](#): > > Carter’s oh-so-careful detente language got us the invasion of Afghanistan, whereas Reagan’s “Evil Empire” got us the fall of the Berlin Wall. Yes, and the people of Afghanistan are **SO** much better off now with the Taliban instead…and we helped install them. Yesiree, your tax dollars at work. I say we should have HELPED the Russians to Afghanistan. Call it a “humanitarian relief effort” – we’ve used that masquerade for enough of our invasions, after all. As for the whole “evil empire” spiel, it could be reasonably argued that the chip on Reagan’s shoulder prolonged the whole issue and made the final inevitable change more troubled, to the point that we still don’t get along well (no thanks to ignorant crusades like this recent ABM garbage) - much like it could be argued that things could have been solved decades ago if not for the chip on Ike’s shoulder that led to the U2 debacle. ---
**Author:** ![Zarathustra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/898d66/32.png) [@Zarathustra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zarathustra)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2001, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-the-crisis-dubya-overturns-taiwan-doctrine/63437/34 "2001-04-28T21:42:33Z")
I’m sorry, I promised myself I wouldn’t, but I’m afraid that some rational people might be mislead by some of this. :: Deep breath :: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Being there in 1996, when Beijing was test-firing missiles a couple of dozen miles offshore of Taiwan’s two major port cities in an effort to spoil the island’s first-ever democratic presidential election. > > You stated the objective yourself. Doesn’t translate into actual invasion plans, though. I think this statement almost speaks for itself, but I would point out that if there was no real threat involved, why did the US dispatch two aircraft carriers? Also, the PLA doesn’t have to invade in order to cow Taiwan into submission–kill enough people with rockets, cut off enough trade through a blockade, and the PLA figures that Taipei should be willing to surrender. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Watching the news at that time, hearing PLA generals’ heavy-handed hints concerning neutron bombs and the US having to give up Los Angeles. > > Please. How much credibility do you normally give the official PRC government news agency? In stating the official position of the PRC government? Quite a lot, actually. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Reading of Beijing’s installation of several hundred more missiles in Fujian province right across the Taiwan Strait in the five years since. > > Been missiles there for 50 years. Means what? You had a heated argument with your neighbor yesterday, and today you’re informed that he’s gone out and bought a shotgun. But there’s always been guns in society, so it can’t mean anything, right? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Learning of China’s efforts to acquire a blue-water navy, including an aircraft carrier. > > Assuming you’re referring to the scrapped Soviet carrier Minsk, they’re turning that into a friggin’ _museum_. Check Pudong next time you’re in Shanghai and you can take a tour. It has the same military capability as the USS Intrepid - or maybe less, since the I used to be effective. But the Chinese are trying their damndest to get their hands on advanced equipment, and Putin is much more willing to give them what they want as of late. Its the intention that I was referring to–an intention that indicates that they are planning on resorting to force if they can. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Perusing accounts of the mainland’s semi-annual military exercises against a faux enemy obviously modeled on Taiwan. > > Every military in the world has exercises. Hell, we probably have wargamed the invasion of Cuba so many times the officers are sick of it - but those aren’t “plans” in the sense that anyone needs to expect it to happen. Naive. Practice war = preparation for war. What possible threat does Taiwan pose to the mainland, that they would feel compelled to conduct anything other than **offensive** exercises? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Having drinks with my reporter friends in Taipei, including one or two guys who worked with _Jane’s Defense Weekly_ > > Wow. Drinks. And with a few other Westerners who went there with the same preconceptions you did. Learned a lot, did you? Ever take the time to actually talk with any of the real people who live this stuff? I have. I don’t know anybody who “lives it” more than the guys at [Jane’s Defence](http://www.janes.com/defence/), unless it’s government intel or military. Predicting military conflict is their business. And I’m sorry if it offends your tender sensibilities, but “over drinks” is the way you talk to reporters when you want to get information from _them_, rather than the other way around. And as I mentioned before, I have a wide range of contacts in the Far East, both native and Western. > [@](#): > > But Chen didn’t disavow the platform that got him elected until he got pressured to (presumably by Clinton) - even then, he just said he wouldn’t press for it _yet_ You’ve yet to provide a single cite. And as for Chen taking orders from Clinton on this issue . . . _snort_. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Before and since the election, he has consistently referred to Taiwan as “The Republic of China” and himself as President thereof, which is no small concession for a former independence activist. > > What concession is it to refer to one’s own country by it’s own official name? Again, you flaunt your ignorance. Semantics and nuances of language is critical in Chinese politics, as even the most casual observer should know. By referring to Taiwan as the “Republic of China”, he admitted that Taiwan is indeed part of China, a concession that alienated many of his supporters. > [@](#): > > Now, in terms of determining the actual (as opposed to rhetorical) intentions of the PRC toward Taiwan, I put a lot more store in the increasing numbers of cross-strait business ties, continuing loosening of travel restrictions (btw, did you know they’re negotiating direct airline links even now?) My turn to say, “so what”? If I remember correctly, Germany’s biggest trading partner before WWII was none other than France. And as I mentioned in another one of these endless threads, Beijing has staked its threadbare legitimacy on keeping the country together–nationalism, in short. They’d certainly prefer to blackmail Taiwan economically by tying its economy ever closer to the mainland, rather than resorting to force. But they old men are _rhetorically_ pushed up against a wall on the Taiwan issue–e.g., if Taiwan declares independence–then they know that they’ve got to respond with force in order to avoid being _actually_ pushed up against a wall and shot ala Rumania’s Ceausescu. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2001, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-the-crisis-dubya-overturns-taiwan-doctrine/63437/35 "2001-04-28T21:45:29Z")
Probably not. So here come the assessments. 🙂 1. There exist nationalists in China who would like to reunify with Taiwan using force. There also exist lots of mostly younger people who couldn’t care less if Taiwan declares itself independent. 2. In between are those dangling offers such as, “One country, two systems, one country, three systems, what’s the difference?” This camp plays a useful role not only because of their relatively cool-headed stance, but because they represent a (very small) point of pressure for those sympathetic to Tibetan self-determination. 3. Greetings to Opal. 4. Within the mainstreams of China and Taiwan, strategic ambiguity is just fine. 5. There exists the [Taiwanese Independence Party](http://www.taiwandc.org/taip-idx.htm). Link list: [http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Union/6245/taiwan\_independence\_movement.html](http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Union/6245/taiwan_independence_movement.html) 6. Chen Shui-bian, Tawain’s current leader, was a one-time high profile advocate for Taiwanese independence. Prior to the election, he explicitly stated that he would not unilaterally declare independence if elected. That said, the independence issue was definitely hovering in the background during the election. Indeed Shui-bian stated that the destiny of Taiwan should be decided via national referendum. [Link](http://www.fas.org/news/taiwan/2000/000318-taiwan4.htm) and [http://taiwansecurity.org/CNA/CNA-01142000-Chen-Shui-Bian.htm](http://taiwansecurity.org/CNA/CNA-01142000-Chen-Shui-Bian.htm) 7. I just found out today that hours after the original ABC interview, Bush back-peddled on CNN, stating that “I’m willing to help Taiwan defend herself, and that nothing has really changed in policy, as far as I’m concerned.” Well that’s ok with me, since it doesn’t _necessarily_ involve a full deployment of US troops. That is, it doesn’t give ardent Taiwanese independence supporters a blank check. (Nor does it give aid and comfort to certain US conservatives who are willing to fight the PRC to the last Taiwanese.) 8. Militarily, China has a growing capacity to terrorize and level parts of Taiwan with missiles. A sea invasion, however, is thought to extend beyond their capacities, given Taiwan’s defenses. 9. In an issue full of Bush apologetics, The Economist Magazine characterizes the day’s events as follows: “This week, officials and observers in Washington, Beijing and Taipei were scrambling to decide whether Mr. Bush has radically shifted policy by stating that American has a duty to defend Taiwan… or whether he was simply confused. On balance, it looks like a case of confusion.” Remember, this was in an article that defended W. So it appears that the policy of strategic ambiguity is still in place. Sorry, **Zarathrusta, December**. 😉 Still, W the campaigner urged re-evaluation of the policy and some members of the administration (Rumsfeld?) are apparently leaning towards an update. I would recommend that they announce their new policy at a different forum than Good Morning America, but that’s just IMHO. 1. The W administration, when asked where they plan to acquire the attack subs, says that issues of deployment will be postponed. The US no longer builds subs. The Europeans do, but have said that they have no intentions of providing them. I have no idea where one poster got the idea that we were providing obsolete submarines. 2. In his first month in office, W put his cabinet together in record time. But after 90 days, he has nominated only 60 out of the 488 appointments requiring approval by the Senate. (In contrast, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton had about 100). So maybe some of the amateurishness will disappear once the full team is in place. > [@](#): > > Exactly who do you think has been threatening the status quo, if not the mainland? The most likely spark for a Chinese/Taiwanese conflict would be a Taiwanese declaration of independence. I hope and believe that cooler heads will prevail on both sides of the strait. Ardent supporters of Taiwanese independence, select militarist segments within the CPC, and US nationalists who scan the globe for new enemies and find them in the PRC are among those who threaten the peaceful and increasingly prosperous status quo. ---
**Author:** ![Zarathustra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/898d66/32.png) [@Zarathustra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zarathustra)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2001, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-the-crisis-dubya-overturns-taiwan-doctrine/63437/36 "2001-04-28T21:59:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mekhazzio \* > **It would be twenty years before they can put any aircraft carrier to good use…the one they’re getting now is just a museum, and is really the best use they could make of it. They just don’t have the support needed for a functioning CVBG (crew, aircraft, supporting ships, etc) They can’t possibly protect it, or even exploit it well due to the lack of decent carrier-based attack aircraft, and it would be a huge target. They would be much better off using several smaller ships and land-based aircraft instead.** No argument there, and I’m hardly an expert on military equipment. I’m just pointing out that China has embarked on a major military expansion program, and I’ll bet that not all of their acquisitions are as ineffectual as the aircraft carrier in question. > [@](#): > > **As for your faux-Taiwan, I seem to recall the US military training rather extensively against a faux-Soviet enemy…does this mean we were seriously contemplating attacking them? …hmm, well I suppose there were enough war hawks that this may not be a great example.** The Soviets were a major threat to us, to our allies, and to our interests around the world. We rationalized that we had to prepare to invade in order to provide a deterrent. But what possible military threat does Taiwan pose to the mainland? > [@](#): > > **Yes, and the people of Afghanistan are SO much better off now with the Taliban instead…and we helped install them. Yesiree, your tax dollars at work. I say we should have HELPED the Russians to Afghanistan. Call it a “humanitarian relief effort” – we’ve used that masquerade for enough of our invasions, after all.** Resorting to nonsequiters! Feeble! Trying to distract our attention with tangential issues! Feeble! You can do better than that. > [@](#): > > \*\*As for the whole “evil empire” spiel, it could be reasonably argued that the chip on Reagan’s shoulder prolonged the whole issue and made the final inevitable change more troubled, to the point that we still don’t get along well (no thanks to ignorant crusades like this recent ABM garbage) - much like it could be argued that things could have been solved decades ago if not for the chip on Ike’s shoulder that led to the U2 debacle. \*\* A legitimate historical argument; I could easily bring up Munich and the Korean War as counterexamples. But you admit that if Bush is making a mistake now, it ranks with Ike’s and the Gipper’s same mistakes. He’s not shifting US diplomatic rhetoric out of ignorance; he and the whole administration know what they’re doing, and that’s what I’ve argued above. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2001, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-the-crisis-dubya-overturns-taiwan-doctrine/63437/37 "2001-04-28T22:08:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zarathustra \* > ::Zarathustra throws up hands:: > You win, Elvis. My nearly ten years living in country, my fluency in Chinese, my fairly extensive range of contacts with residents and businessmen and political figures in Taiwan… Impressive credentials. It’s the arguments I have trouble with. Z _seems_ to be claiming that the prospects of a Taiwanese declaration of independence was a nonissue during the 1996/7? election. IIRC, that was the impetus for PRC sabre-rattling at the time, and the corresponding US military exercises. I thought that both sides made their position clear. Z _seems_ to believe that the Taiwanese/Chinese arms race indicates that hostilities will commence. Hey, I agree on the need for keeping some strategic parity there. But I suspect that the Chinese are hoping that military threats/military strength can forclose unilateral moves by Taiwan. Let’s also not forget that China’s security position is rather problematic. Among the armful of countries on their border, they have only 1 that they can perhaps call an ally: North Korea. So the fact that a rapidly growing country has a rapidly growing military shouldn’t surprise us. My surprise is that Z’s extensive set of contacts apparently hasn’t given him a broader sense of context. But, hey, I’m an amateur in this area. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2001, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-the-crisis-dubya-overturns-taiwan-doctrine/63437/38 "2001-04-28T22:25:23Z")
Minor correction: The Minsk is in Shenzhen (between Hong Kong and Canton), not Shanghai as I had thought. It’s already open for visitors, as the central exhibit at [Minsk World](http://www.shenzhenwindow.net/guides/attract_minsk.htm). I just know you’re all itching to go there. ---
**Author:** ![Zarathustra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/898d66/32.png) [@Zarathustra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zarathustra)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2001, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-the-crisis-dubya-overturns-taiwan-doctrine/63437/39 "2001-04-28T22:33:44Z")
I didn’t mean to come across as pompous, **flowbark** , and my “credentials” certainly aren’t directed at you. I don’t even claim to have any special insight on the larger context of the problem–forest for the trees, you know. But I did think it might be appropriate to put my own assertions in context given the outright falsehoods that certain other posters were perpetuating. Of the question of reunification or independence is a constant undercurrent, a generator of background noise, in Taiwanese politics. But it’s not always that important, believe it or not. **Ned** said that “You may recall the last Taiwan election where an end to the one china policy was seriously put forward.” Put forward, as in proposed by one of the major candidates. That didn’t happen _at all_. The truth was much more mundane–and yet more remarkable–than that. People were tired of the KMT, they wanted a change, and a majority voted either for the DPP or for the “People First Party” (a KMT splinter group that at the time was little more than a support group for ousted Taiwan governor James Soong). It came down to corruption, crime, and the government’s inept handling of earthquake relief the previous September, a lot of **local** issues. To state otherwise would be to belittle the Taiwanese electorate’s real achievement. The remarkable thing was that the KMT _tried_ to paint Chen Shui-bian as a rabid independent activist that would lead Taiwan into war, and . . . **it didn’t work**. They had cried wolf one too many times. Chen explicitly broke with his party and stated that he wouldn’t unilaterally declare independence, and that effectively defanged the KMT on this issue. As for the Taiwanese/Chinese arms race, I wasn’t predicting hostilities. If Taiwan, with US assistance, keeps up a strong enough deterrent, then it will never come to that. But again, certain other posters stated that China has no intention of using arms against Taiwan, and I contend that that’s a grave misreading of both the PRC’s recent rhetoric and actions. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2001, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-the-crisis-dubya-overturns-taiwan-doctrine/63437/40 "2001-04-28T22:47:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zarathustra \* > But what possible military threat does Taiwan pose to the mainland? They don’t, and that spectre hasn’t been raised by anyone with a grip on reality, either. Taiwan DOES pose a poltical threat to the PRC government, undeniably, by simply being democratic and economically successful and right next door and ethnically and linguistically Chinese, and therefore an example to the Chinese people that they don’t have to put up with the Beijing government if they don’t want to. Yes, the PLA may be increasing in size since the Tiananmen Square crackdown(if not in modernity or warfighting capability), but doesn’t it seem one hell of a lot more likely that its purpose is to deter and suppress domestic revolt? > [@](#): > > Resorting to nonsequiters! Feeble! Trying to distract our attention with tangential issues! Feeble! You can do better than that. The type of statement resorted to by one who has no significant arguments left standing. Oh, incidentally: > [@](#): > > But Chen didn’t disavow the platform that got him elected until he got pressured to (presumably by Clinton) - even then, he just said he wouldn’t press for it yet > > You’ve yet to provide a single cite. And as for Chen taking orders from Clinton on this issue . . . _snort_. No cite, my own interpretation based on the timing of Chen’s own statements. And if you don’t believe the US has some serious influence over Taiwans’ leaders, then _snort_. > [@](#): > > What concession is it to refer to one’s own country by it’s own official name? > > Again, you flaunt your ignorance. Semantics and nuances of language is critical in Chinese politics, as even the most casual observer should know. By referring to Taiwan as the “Republic of China”, he admitted that Taiwan is indeed part of China, a concession that alienated many of his supporters. Please tell me the official name of the government now controlling Taiwan. Look at your visa stamp if you’re not sure. The most you can accuse Chen of is resurrecting the claim Lee quietly dropped of the KMT being the rightful rulers of the mainland. > [@](#): > > But the[y] old men are rhetorically pushed up against a wall on the Taiwan issue–e.g., if Taiwan declares independence–then they know that they’ve got to respond with force in order to avoid being actually pushed up against a wall and shot ala Rumania’s Ceausescu. Finally got something right. Congratulations. **flowbark and mekhazzio** , well stated, bravo. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-the-crisis-dubya-overturns-taiwan-doctrine/63437.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/after-the-crisis-dubya-overturns-taiwan-doctrine/63437.md?page=3)