# Does every country have a right to be free and independent? Bush says no. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 11, 2003, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-every-country-have-a-right-to-be-free-and-independent-bush-says-no/218401 "2003-12-11T18:09:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-every-country-have-a-right-to-be-free-and-independent-bush-says-no/218401/21 "2003-12-11T20:35:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\* > It’s not about gaining anything it’s about doing the right thing. > \*\* Oh. I see. It’s like that. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\* > 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). \*\* Selling “defensive” arms etc. to Taiwan is insufficient in your eyes? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-every-country-have-a-right-to-be-free-and-independent-bush-says-no/218401/22 "2003-12-11T20:39:48Z")
> [@](#): > > Selling “defensive” arms etc. to Taiwan is insufficient in your eyes? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![lefty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85e7bf/32.png) [@lefty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lefty)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-every-country-have-a-right-to-be-free-and-independent-bush-says-no/218401/23 "2003-12-11T20:42:01Z")
xtisme, I am familiar with the “slippery slope” argument as it pertains here, but guess I just don’t buy it. If and when Taiwan _actually_ makes a move to disrupt the “status quo” by actively pushing for independence, then I might buy the argument that they’re just being difficult. But that’s not what they’re doing. I guess the idea of publicly chastizing a people for something you suspect they might eventually do with no concrete evidence doesn’t strike me as particularly effective foreign policy. Particularly when the thing you think they might eventually do is pretty much the thing we’re most proud of having done here in the U.S. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-every-country-have-a-right-to-be-free-and-independent-bush-says-no/218401/24 "2003-12-11T20:42:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by HayekHeyst \* > \*\*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 > \*\* IIRC, this isn’t our policy. We’ve agreed to supply them w/ what’s sufficient for them to defend themselves though. > [@](#): > > QUESTION: Jay Chen, Central News Agency. Different people have interpreted differently what Secretary Armitage said the other day, and I am wondering whether it is correct to infer that just because there isn’t a defense treaty between the two sides, the U.S. is under no obligation to defend Taiwan, or help defend Taiwan. > > And another point in his remarks is that, Secretary Armitage said that the U.S. one-China policy is premised on the peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question. Did he mean to say that if indeed the Chinese decided to resort to the use of force, then they should not expect the U.S. to adhere to the one-China policy? Thank you. > > MR. SCHRIVER: On the first question, Secretary Armitage was referring to the language in our law, the Taiwan Relations Act. We do not have a defense treaty, but the Taiwan Relations Act is very explicit in terms of what our obligations are and they include providing weapons of a defensive character for Taiwan’s sufficient self-defense. It also includes that we’ll maintain the capacity to resist force, and I think that’s the element he was addressing in his statement. > The second question you asked, U.S. policy has always been based on a premise of peaceful approaches. That language is, in fact, in the three communiqués that the Chinese – we acknowledge the Chinese position, that they have a fundamental peaceful approach to the differences. > So that is an expectation that we have, and we hold our Chinese colleagues to that, and that relates to my opening statement, why we’re opposed to the use of force to settle this question. > [http://fpc.state.gov/26534.htm](http://fpc.state.gov/26534.htm) \*\* [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-every-country-have-a-right-to-be-free-and-independent-bush-says-no/218401/25 "2003-12-11T20:58:51Z")
So, lefty, its your opinion we should back off and let the Taiwanese alone to do their own thing, until they basically spring full independance from China on us and we have a full blown shooting war on our hands? That we shouldn’t warn them, in no uncertain terms not to play with the independance card?? Certainly YOU might not think thats what Taiwan is doing, but China is certainly taking notice of things…and if THEY think that this is a road to independence for Taiwan to take, what might THEY do? Oh, I have no problems with Taiwan being independant from China if thats what they want (and appearently it IS)…my problem is the cost such an action would take. Your shinning eyed statement that independance is what we cherish and Taiwan should have it too does you credit…now, are you willing to back that up with the blood and fire that would require?? Are you willing to see casualties the scale of which makes Iraq look like a picnic?? I think not. The other problem is, if Bush did the exact opposite, and there WAS a horrific war there (which I think is a good possibility), I see most of the people railing at him for sticking with the status quo and fucking over Taiwan howling that Bush once again has gotten us into a war, that we should never have gotten involved, etc etc. So, its really a no win situation for him. Its times like these and threads like this one that make me almost sympathetic with the man… -XT ---
**Author:** ![bbonden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecb155/32.png) [@bbonden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bbonden)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-every-country-have-a-right-to-be-free-and-independent-bush-says-no/218401/26 "2003-12-11T21:03:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > I see nothing wrong with Bush showing support for Taiwan in that respect. This is just setting the stage for inevitable disappointment If Bush were to “show support for Taiwan in that respect,” it would happen behind closed doors, not in a public address that dared the Chinese to back down. There is no scenario in which a “Mr. Chairman, point your missiles the other direction” speech improves things. ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-every-country-have-a-right-to-be-free-and-independent-bush-says-no/218401/27 "2003-12-11T21:13:51Z")
“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.” First there is no guarantee that this approach will work. Taiwan is a central issue for Chinese foreign policy and not one where they will appreciate being bossed around by the US. Secondly “doing no business with China” doesn’t just hurt corporate fat-cats. It will hurt American consumers by raising the prices of the goods which were imported from China. It will hurt Chinese workers by stopping those exports. And it will hurt the US economy at large because China is a huge purhcaser of US bonds which helps keep interest rates low. Not to mention the damage to US-China co-operation on North Korea and Islamic terrorism. So the US-China relationship is rather more important than pleasing a few corporations. ---
**Author:** ![HayekHeyst](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/45deac/32.png) [@HayekHeyst](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HayekHeyst)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-every-country-have-a-right-to-be-free-and-independent-bush-says-no/218401/28 "2003-12-11T21:14:04Z")
**Diogenes** writes: > [@](#): > > 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). I think the US would be justified (in terms of justice and rights) in supporting Taiwanese and Tibetan independence. But, let’s face it, there are a lot of issues in the US-China relationship (not just economic ones, which you seem to regard as the critical and corrupt main problem) that the US wants Chinese cooperation on. N. Korea, or weapons non-proliferation. The real world involves prudential compromises to maximize justice. You seem to be arguing that omission (not defending Taiwan’s rights to declare independence or demand removal of a military threat) and commission (aiding and abetting a Chinese assault on Taiwan) are morally equivalent. That’s a tall claim. ---
**Author:** ![HayekHeyst](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/45deac/32.png) [@HayekHeyst](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HayekHeyst)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-every-country-have-a-right-to-be-free-and-independent-bush-says-no/218401/29 "2003-12-11T21:25:07Z")
Thanks for the correction, **SimonX.** The section of the press conference you quoted > [@](#): > > It also includes that we’ll maintain the capacity to resist force looks like a vague assertion that the US reserves the option to intervene. It’d rather funny if it weren’t a serious matter. The spokesman points out that the Taiwan Relations Act is very explicit that the US has to retain the capability to intervene. But the TRA is apparently not explicit at all about whether the US actually would intervene. “We’re very explicit about our vagueness” ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-every-country-have-a-right-to-be-free-and-independent-bush-says-no/218401/30 "2003-12-11T21:29:47Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s not about gaining anything it’s about doing the right thing. Please explain to me how Bush did not do the “right thing” by removing a dictator that has murdered tens of thousands of his own citizens, started two wars, and ignored U.N. demands. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-every-country-have-a-right-to-be-free-and-independent-bush-says-no/218401/31 "2003-12-11T21:30:35Z")
> [@](#): > > You seem to be arguing that omission (not defending Taiwan’s rights to declare independence or demand removal of a military threat) and commission (aiding and abetting a Chinese assault on Taiwan) are morally equivalent. That’s a tall claim. Maybe not equivalent but we don’t have to do business with the aggressors. Realpolitik justifications only go so far. ---
**Author:** ![lefty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85e7bf/32.png) [@lefty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lefty)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-every-country-have-a-right-to-be-free-and-independent-bush-says-no/218401/32 "2003-12-11T21:31:28Z")
I’m not sure I have enough knowledge to know exactly what I’d do in the same situation. I certainly appreciate that the U.S. needs China’s help for a variety of reasons (unfortunately) and that there are only bad options and worse ones when world leaders choose not to play nice. But yes, I guess my gut tells me that the Taiwanese deserve the right of self-determination as much as anyone else. They’re perfectly capable of anticipating and realizing consequences, and probably have more of a stake in this than the U.S. does. If China interprets their democratic request as something it’s not and invades Taiwan as a rexponse, then I think we need to be criticizing China and not Taiwan. And yes, like it or not, Bush is the President. My feeling is that it’s his job to make these tough decisions, particularly when he’s pretty clearly backed himself into the corner he finds himself in (by his handling of terrorism in general, North Korea in specific, and overcommitment of existing resources in the Middle East). So it’s hard to be too sympathetic. Every president I’m old enough to remember has had to deal with some unpleasant foreign relations issue they’d rather have avoided, but since that’s what the U.S. elected him for (more or less), it’s hard to be too sympathetic. I would further argue that sometimes good decisions lead to bad results and that most people understand that. I certainly wouldn’t blame Bush for NOT criticizing Taiwan for making a fairly reasonable request of a fairly unreasonable communist regime; at the very least, it would be pretty hard to make an argument from that that Bush was somehow complicit in the escalation. If Bush was actively provoking civil war, he’d certainly deserve whatever criticism he got, but I doubt he’d take much crap for not actively involving the US in supporting China’s belligerence. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-every-country-have-a-right-to-be-free-and-independent-bush-says-no/218401/33 "2003-12-11T21:39:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by treis \* > \*\*Please explain to me how Bush did not do the “right thing” by removing a dictator that has murdered tens of thousands of his own citizens, started two wars, and ignored U.N. demands. \*\* Are you serious? 1.) The US has no right to remove any dictator for any reason other than self-defense. 2.) The US has no authority to unilaterally enforce UN resolutions. The US invasion of Iraq was itself a violation of the UN Charter. 3.) Bush LIED about his excuse for the invasion. He staged an aggressive, non-defensive and _illegal_ assault on the sovereignty of another country, killing hundreds of American soldiers as well as god knows how many Iraqis for NO DAMN REASON WHATSOVER. Is that enough of an explanation for you? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-every-country-have-a-right-to-be-free-and-independent-bush-says-no/218401/34 "2003-12-11T22:12:09Z")
No its not. 1. Then why exactly is it right that we get invovled with the Tawain-China situation? 2. I am not sure when the U.N. charter decided what I thought was wrong/right in international relations. Last time I checked it was a bunch of rules that have no consequences to breaking them. 3. How about saving the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens being murdered? I assert that removing a dictator that murders his citizens is the right thing. You have given me no reason why its the wrong thing to do. ---
**Author:** ![TheQuagmire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4da419/32.png) [@TheQuagmire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheQuagmire)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-every-country-have-a-right-to-be-free-and-independent-bush-says-no/218401/35 "2003-12-11T22:12:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\* > 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). > \*\* You’re seriously underestimating China’s attitude towards foreigners meddling in what is/was an internal civil war. China has a chip on its shoulder due to a couple centuries of abuse at the hands of various western colonialists and imperialists. The Chinese people in general are very nationalist these days and will support any war to keep foreigners from interfering with their affairs. You say they are just bluffing and will acquiesce to any U.S. arm twisting but it’s really not the case. They went to war in 1962 with nuclear armed nation (India) over ideological territorial resasons and won that conflict. They will do it again if they feel threatened by foreign powers. China isn’t really expansionist since this _is_ in fact a matter of civil war but make no mistake they will go to extreme lengths to protect what they feel is their sovreignty. I don’t see how you can be against Iraq but yet so keen on seeing an escalation in the Chinese/Taiwanese conflict. The reality is foreigners outside of that immediate region don’t understand all the components in that dispute. Many Taiwanese themselves aren’t even deadset on independence. By all accounts the population on Taiwan is divided on it which is why it always comes up as a matter of debate in political forums. I’ll even go as far as to say most Taiwanese would rather maintain the status quo. It’s foolish to charge into a foreign civil affair taking sides if you don’t know the whole story. What Bush did was in fact the smartest thing he has done so far in office. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-every-country-have-a-right-to-be-free-and-independent-bush-says-no/218401/36 "2003-12-11T22:33:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by treis \* > \*\*No its not. > > 1. Then why exactly is it right that we get invovled with the Tawain-China situation? > > 2. I am not sure when the U.N. charter decided what I thought was wrong/right in international relations. Last time I checked it was a bunch of rules that have no consequences to breaking them. > > 3. How about saving the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens being murdered? > > \*\* 1.) You’re comparing apples and oranges. The UN Charter forbids the any attack on the sovereignty of another country. Simply voicing an opinion on a referendum in Taiwan does not attack China’s sovereignty. 2.) The US chose to _ratify_ the UN Charter and abide by it. They establish international law. The fact that that no one can enforce any sanctions against the US for violating it does not mean that the US has not, in fact, violated it. 3.) Irrelevant. The UN Charter specificially excludes any such internal considerations as a justification for an agressive war. It’s self defense or nothing. Furthermore, that was not the _stated_ justification which Bush took to the UN. Bush chose to invent a story about WMDs because he knew he need a quasi-legal justification. The war was non-defensive and unneccesary and stupid and wrong. > [@](#): > > **I assert that removing a dictator that murders his citizens is the right thing. You have given me no reason why its the wrong thing to do.** I’ve given you several but let me ask you this: Would _you_ have been willing to die remove Hussein from power in Iraq? Would you have been willing to let one of your children die for that cause? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-every-country-have-a-right-to-be-free-and-independent-bush-says-no/218401/37 "2003-12-11T22:45:54Z")
You’re not reading what I am writing. I do not care that Bush’s reason was that Iraq was pursuing wmd’s. It was not my reason for supporting the war. I do not care that the U.N. says the war was illegal. I know we agreed to follow the rules and we agreed to accept the punishment if we broke them. Luckily this punishment is little. No I am not willing to die to remove Hussein from power. Luckily I live in a nation in which far braver and nobler people than I VOLUNTEERED to fight for America and for the greater good of the world. By the time my children are old enough to fight in the military I am no longer “letting” them do anything. They have volunteered to join the military and would hopefully perform their duty bravely. Now that I have adressed your questions I ask you again: Why is removing a dictator that has started two wars of agression and murders thousands upon thousands of his own citizens wrong? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-every-country-have-a-right-to-be-free-and-independent-bush-says-no/218401/38 "2003-12-11T22:50:27Z")
Well DtC, as you seem bent on hijacking your own thread, I figured I’d play too. /nitpick From DtC > [@](#): > > Furthermore, that was not the stated justification which Bush took to the UN. **Bush chose to invent a story about WMDs** because he knew he need a quasi-legal justification. Now, if you stated this as “Bush was WRONG about WMD in Iraq” or “Bush cherry picked the data to enhance his case for WMD” I wouldn’t have a problem. But its bullshit to state that Bush INVENTED a story about WMD out of whole cloth. Much as the anti-war crowd likes to now sit back and smuggly state that EVERYONE knew that there really weren’t any WMD in Iraq, thats not the case at all. Bush and the US were not the ONLY ones that thought that SH had WMD in Iraq. Personally, whether he had them or not (and ya, I thought he did too), is irrelevant to me…it was STILL wrong for us to go into Iraq as we did. Again, not because it was ‘wrong’ to do so, but because it wasn’t NECESSARY for us to do so at that time and place. My problem is with the expense and the tieing up of our military to no observable ends, with very little benifit that I see. /nitpick From DtC > [@](#): > > The war was non-defensive and unneccesary and stupid and wrong. I totally agree with you here. Well, depending on how you interperate the word ‘wrong’ of course, but I certainly agree completely with the “non-defensive and unnecessary and stupid” part without qualifications. 🙂 -XT ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-every-country-have-a-right-to-be-free-and-independent-bush-says-no/218401/39 "2003-12-11T22:53:42Z")
It is wrong when we approach it like Jim McMahon: “When I hit the turf, I got no plan.” ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-every-country-have-a-right-to-be-free-and-independent-bush-says-no/218401/40 "2003-12-11T23:06:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > Is that enough of an explanation for you? It’s not enough for _me_, at least not to explaining why Iraq should be compared in any way to Taiwan. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-every-country-have-a-right-to-be-free-and-independent-bush-says-no/218401.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-every-country-have-a-right-to-be-free-and-independent-bush-says-no/218401.md?page=3)