Funny. It was worth taking an illegal military action in order to “liberate” Iraq from Saddam Hussein but Bush does not believe that Taiwan has the right to be free from his buddy China? It’s also interesting to note that Bush used threat of imaginary WMDs as an excuse for his invasion but sees nothing wrong with all the Chinese missiles aimed at Taiwan, and unlike the Iraqi WMDs, those Chinese missiles actually exist. Bush also cited Hussein’s human rights abuses but has no problem with China’s own miserable human rights record.
Could it be that American corporate interests are more important to Shrubya than the right of self determination in a “renegade province” that doesn’t even have any oil.
Gee, Simon which is it to be? Was it an “ideologically driven decsion” or “love of pragmatism”?
And, for my money, the “pragmatism” of our imperial Iraqi adventure is secondary to its being brain-dead dumb. If they’d pulled this off without a hitch, I would still have been against it. The fact that they are flat-footed and ham-fisted only makes thier removal from office a question of survival, rather than international civic virtue.
I would like to think I’m exaggerating. But I’m not sure. History records that JFK read Barbara Tuchman’s Guns of August and this affected his approach to the Cuban Missile crisis. The Angry, Angry Caterpillar doesn’t quite measure up.
I’m not asking for miltary action, but it’s a little hypocritical for Bush to give lip service about the rights of self-determination on the one hand and then tell Taiwan it must remain a slave to China on the other hand. If he had any balls he’d voice some official support for Taiwan’s independence. What’s China going to do about it anyway? Go make trade deals with France? China needs the US more than it needs Taiwan. This isn’t about fearing China, it’s about Bush not wanting to chafe against American corporate interests.
I’m not following you here. I didn’t say anything was the love of pragmatism. I was noting an apparent lack thereof. So an either/or query isn’t readily undersdtandable to me.
I have yet to find the Iraq Venture marked by eminent examples of pragmatism. IIRC, various views of mine on that venture have been expressed in this forum.
DtC,
While the case can be made for this being hypocritical, I’d say instead that the same principles should’ve been involved in the Iraq venture.
As to the “what this is about” section:
I’m ill-informed about about these things. Would you be so kind as to elaborate?
I was under the impression that Taiwan was a breakaway province of China, in the same way that Chechnya is a breakaway province of Russia. Neither of these regions are countries as asserted in the OP, and it behooves Bush to be a little circumspect in encouraging what would amount to a chinese civil war. It’s a rare day when Bush does the right thing, diplomatically speaking, but this was one of them. The Taiwanese leaders tried to pull an Ariel Sharon on Bush’s China policy, and the president said no.
Official US policy is to favor peaceful resolution of conflict and to stay out of it. I’m not sure what’s to be gained by monkey-fucking around between the two of them.
American corporations have hundreds of billions of dollars invested in China. Most of them, including AT&T, Boeing, Microsoft nd GM are also major GOP contributors. Those companies do not want any friction with China and Bush has caved in to those companies before (remember the official “apology” for the US spy plane captured in China). It’s ironic but communist China is tremendously important to American capitalism right now.
It’s not about gaining anything it’s about doing the right thing.
All Taiwan is actually doing is voting on a referendum demanding that China remove the hundreds of ballistic missiles that are pointed at it.
Bush calls this a “move towards independence” that would undermine the “status quo.” In other words, China and the US decided long ago that Taiwan was a “renegade province” and Taiwan, for some reason, must abide by that policy.
Bush claims to care about human rights (not to mention imminent threats) and it would not cost that much for him to support Taiwan’s demand not to live in the shadows of those missiles. It might cost some American companies some lucrative Chinese deals, though, so that’s that. Corporate interests (not to mention campaign contrubutions) trump human rights (not that this attitude is unique to Bush, Clinton did it too).
Jeeze elucidator, I thought the OP was about Taiwan and China. Maybe you’d like to take a shot at actually answering the OP? :rolleyes:
DtC, what exactly are you saying? Do you think that Bush should encourage Taiwan towards independance, when China has stated openly that they would consider this an act of war and attack? Do you think China is bluffing on this and we should call their bluff? I’m no Bush fan, but my god! This is the first smart thing I’ve seen him unqualifyingly do foreign policy wise! Maybe its a new trend and we shouldn’t fuck with it.
As to the money aspect…well, that goes both ways, doesn’t it? China also flows money into the 'Crats coffers. I’m sure that this all factors into the decision (money being a big factor for politicians of all stripes), but the biggest factor (IMO) is the whole, you know, shooting war in one of the most heavily trafficed areas in Asia thingy. That and those pesky nukes that both sides (IF Taiwan has them, which I’m laying odds they do) have.
Let me ask you something DtC…what exactly DO you think Bush should do in this situation? Seems to me to be a pretty narrow tight rope that America (not just Bush) has been and is walking here.
I don’t see much wrong with Bush’s statement; it’s been US policy for decades to oppose Taiwanese independence except through agreement with the PRC. At the same time the US will oppose any use of force by China to resolve the issue. So basically the US opposes any unilateral changes to the status quo by either side. Bush’s statement seem well within that framework though with a few additional nuances.
As for consistency I agree that this statement is inconsistent with the neo-con ideology and has indeed been attacked by neo-cons. However just because Bush blundered in Iraq doesn’t mean he is obligated to blunder in other parts of the world. In fact along with the appointment of James Baker to help with Iraq this may well mark a welcome return to a more pragmatic foreign policy.
Jeeze elucidator, I thought the OP was about Taiwan and China. Maybe you’d like to take a shot at actually answering the OP? :rolleyes:
DtC, what exactly are you saying? Do you think that Bush should encourage Taiwan towards independance, when China has stated openly that they would consider this an act of war and attack? Do you think China is bluffing on this and we should call their bluff? I’m no Bush fan, but my god! This is the first smart thing I’ve seen him unqualifyingly do foreign policy wise! Maybe its a new trend and we shouldn’t fuck with it.
As to the money aspect…well, that goes both ways, doesn’t it? China also flows money into the 'Crats coffers. I’m sure that this all factors into the decision (money being a big factor for politicians of all stripes), but the biggest factor (IMO) is the whole, you know, shooting war in one of the most heavily trafficed areas in Asia thingy. That and those pesky nukes that both sides (IF Taiwan has them, which I’m laying odds they do) have.
Let me ask you something DtC…what exactly DO you think Bush should do in this situation? Seems to me to be a pretty narrow tight rope that America (not just Bush) has been and is walking here, as America would inevitably be caught in the middle of any conflict there…we DO have defense treaties with Taiwan after all which would go into effect if China attacked.
Diogenes–
I think Bush’s remarks need to be put in the context of the long-run US policy being:
A) US defense of Taiwan should China attack w/o provocation
B) A Taiwanese declaration of independence
I think it would be accurate to say that the US (and Bush) supports the status quo, which is de facto but not de jure independence. The US supports de facto independence, but is unwilling to defend de jure independence.
I don’t think that the US’s reluctance to defend a Taiwanese DoI implies the US is repressing Taiwanese independence. Nations are within their rights to use force to protect another nation’s independence, but (for instance) China isn’t obliged to come to Quebec’s aid if they declare independence from Canada.
Whether or not a nation exercises all its legitimate options to intervene with force is to be determined by national interest and prudential considerations.
For the whole Taiwan/province/country thing look here.
Aside from that, it seems that it’s the PRC not the White house that is preventing anyone from being free. Besides do you really want Bush to get you into a serious war?
How does asking someone please not to aim ballistic missiles at you somehow constitute an escalation of conflict? It looks to me (perhaps naively) that the Chinese regime has been provoking Taiwan, and the citizens of Taiwan are trying to DE-escalate the tension by asking China to please not aim hundreds of loaded weapons at them and constantly threaten invasion.
Is that unreasonable? If the “status quo” that Bush supports is that big, powerful countries that do what he wants are entitled to run roughshod over the democratic wishes of others, I find that to be fairly odious and at least somewhat inconsistent with the recent Iraqi rhetoric.
The only real reason China has to point missiles at Taiwan is to be ready to use them to kill its citizens. This is not a reasonable “status quo” that Taiwan should be expected to accept, IMHO. Or at the very least, their perfectly democratic response does not seem to be deserving of Bush’s harsh comments.
What I find very interesting is that Taiwan seems pretty likely to go ahead with this, regardless of what Bush says. Is the shit about to hit the fan here? Is Bush going to get screwed by this?
In what way, pray tell, is Taiwan a “slave” to China? Are its residents impressed into the Chinese military? Its presses controlled by Beijing? Its markets regulated from the mainland? Its elections stymied? Or perhaps there are some mass executions I haven’t seen reported in the local papers? What shackles must it throw off?
The reality is that Taiwan has the full panoply of sovereign rights, missing only the pomp of full statehood. Now, I do not want to belittle the pride that would come with recognition as a nation-state among the community of nations. And if I lived in Taiwan, I may have a swell of nationistic fervor that led me to risk annihilation. But in the broader picture, suggesting that Taiwan live (for now) without the pomp of full statehood is something far, far less than suggesting that its people lack self-determination. So much less as to be silly.
Lefty, read through the thread Grey posted a link too for more detail…there are a lot of very knowlegable people about this chiming in on that thread.
Basically, from what I understand, the main problem is with Chen Shui-bian, who became president on a very pro-independance ticket. Basically, again from what I understand, China believes that Chen, if he pushes through this referendum, will ALSO push through one on independance…and thats where the conflict comes in. China see’s this as a way of backing into independance for Taiwan, and THEY are taking this thing very seriously.
Hopefully some of the real experts on this thing will chime in with better info.
I think that the US should use it’s trade agreements with China as leverage to work towards Taiwan’s independence. Either that or they shouldn’t do business with China at all.
Do I think China is bluffing about attacking Taiwan? Yes, actually, I do. Such an attack would be far too costly to China as the US would be obligated to defend Taiwan and I don’t believe that China is stupid enough to want a full scale war with the US (especially when such a war would have a very real potential to go nuclear).
Taiwan is not actually declaring independence yet, though, they just want the Mainland to quit aiming missiles at it. I see nothing wrong with Bush showing support for Taiwan in that respect.
I think Bush could try a little arm twisting with China even if it costs a few American companies some deals. Supporting the “One China” status quo is supporting aggression and intimidation (Don’t even get me started on Tibet).
