Oh. I see. It’s like that.
Selling “defensive” arms etc. to Taiwan is insufficient in your eyes?
Yes.
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.
IIRC, this isn’t our policy. We’ve agreed to supply them w/ what’s sufficient for them to defend themselves though.
**
[/QUOTE]
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
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.
“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.
Diogenes writes:
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.
Thanks for the correction, SimonX.
The section of the press conference you quoted
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”
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.
Maybe not equivalent but we don’t have to do business with the aggressors. Realpolitik justifications only go so far.
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.
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?
No its not.
-
Then why exactly is it right that we get invovled with the Tawain-China situation?
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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’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?
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?
Well DtC, as you seem bent on hijacking your own thread, I figured I’d play too.
/nitpick
From DtC
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
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
It is wrong when we approach it like Jim McMahon:
“When I hit the turf, I got no plan.”
It’s not enough for me, at least not to explaining why Iraq should be compared in any way to Taiwan.