China threatens War with Taiwan!

[China_Guy]

@Hemlock

Recovery of Taiwan is an almost sacred mission for the PRC government. Several generations of leaders and general public have been brought up to be (by outsiders’ standards) pretty much fanatical about the idea.

IMHO Recovery of Taiwaqn is sacred lip service.

If PRC really wanted to, they could retake the dippy ass islands off the coast of Fujian tomorrow and really rattle the world. They haven’t

[ElvisL1ves]

Just thought I’d point out that the ROC dropped its claim to be the rightful government of all of China in 1991, albeit unofficially. They further proceeded to merge the ROC government with the Taiwan provincial government, and made seats in Parliament depend on residency in Taiwan districts instead of original mainland homes. The claim just isn’t a real barrier anymore from that side.

Link.

Sam, you must not have noticed, but Bush peremptorily discarded the “strategic ambiguity” approach that had worked so well shortly after taking office, about the time of the P-3 Hainan incident.

[China_Guy]

@ElvisL1ves

Sam, you must not have noticed, but Bush peremptorily discarded the “strategic ambiguity” approach that had worked so well shortly after taking office, about the time of the P-3 Hainan incident.

It occured on one of the Morning shows like Good Morning America. Bush said something off the cuff that if taken literally would have been a departure from the “strategic ambiguity” strategy. His handlers were on the wires within 10 minutes and on the air by mid-morning to “fully explain” what the President meant, and to "clarify’ that there was no change in the “strategic ambiguity” strategy of the US vis-a-vis China.

I would certainly be interested in seeing any info that shows the US has indeed moved away from the “strategic ambiguity” strategy.

[BrainGlutton]

@Hemlock

Recovery of Taiwan is an almost sacred mission for the PRC government. Several generations of leaders and general public have been brought up to be (by outsiders’ standards) pretty much fanatical about the idea. It’s not impossible that a Beijing govt would feel a need to act in order to keep itself in power - ie the people would overthrow a govt in Beijing that was perceived as letting Taiwan go. They’ve painted themselves into a corner.

In my first year at law school (1989-90) at the University of Maryland at Baltimore, my roommate was a Chinese pharmacy student who, as it happened, was a political refugee – he had been active in the democracy movement (at Hunan Medical University in Changsha) and, after Tianmen Square, he got out of the country as fast as he could. When he discussed Chinese politics, he expressed the opinion that many Chinese would be comfortable with a more democratic and smaller China – in other words, a China minus Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, etc. He never mentioned Taiwan, that I recall, but I got the impression that liberal Chinese – and there are some – wouldn’t make a fuss over it.

[ElvisL1ves]

China Guy, Here’s a link:

CNN, April 25, 2001

U.S. President George Bush said Wednesday he would defend Taiwan from a Chinese attack but said he still opposes independence for the island.

“I also want to send the message that I think this can be resolved peacefully,” Bush said in an interview with CNN.

**During an earlier interview with ABC television, Bush said he would do “whatever it takes” to defend Taiwan from any Chinese attack – comments that appeared to change long-standing U.S. doctrine toward China and coincided with rising tensions between Washington and Beijing. **

Bush said he did not consider his comments a change in policy, though no other president has made such an explicit commitment to the defense of Taiwan.

It’s certainly reasonable to think that, if the President says it, it’s policy. It’s true that nothing has happened since that would force the administration to resolve the “ambiguity” between Bush’s direct statement and his staffers’ “clarifications”, though.

[Sam_Stone]

You can read Bush’s statements in a number of ways: a gaffe (likely), or perhaps a shot across the bow at China. Bush makes the claim, then Powell Rice and others come out and explain that U.S. policy hasn’t changed, and strategic ambiguity is maintained - but the message has been sent.

Most likely Bush just screwed up, and it was corrected. This does not mark a change of official government policy. As far as I know, “strategic ambiguity” is still in play.