Does every country have a right to be free and independent? Bush says no.

Great Debates
61

Godwin! Godwin! I win! I win! :wink:

Seriously, A 1935 assassination of Hitler would presume that the hitter already knew everything about what would happen with the holocaust and WWII. I don’t believe a person could have known that yet. Hitler had not yet invaded Poland or established any death camps. Although it was evident that he was a lunatic the sheer scope and significance of his evil was not yet known.

So in 1935, I would say yes, it would have been wrong to assassinate Hitler (unless the hitter were a time traveller from the future).

Also, killing one person to stop a war is not the same as starting a war to kill one evil person.

62

True as far as it goes, but that’s really only half the story; Taiwan was not a province of China until 1895; even then to that it was a backwater territory, as much an integral part of China as Guam is to the US. Taiwan had developed a distinct dialect and distinct culture from China. Three years later, they’re handed over to the Japanese, whose rule is NOT the iron-fisted sort that was later seen in Manchuria; in fact the Japanese lay the foundation for industrialized Taiwan by putting down railways and building roads. After WWII, Taiwan is handed over to the Quasi-fascist KMT, who are soon arriving in droves from the mainland, fleeing the Communists, and who brutally repress the native Taiwanese for many years. It is only with democritization (achieved peacefully and with no outside help) that the people of Taiwan have had a voice in their own affairs.

In sum, 1)Taiwan was NEVER an integral part of mainland China for any significant period of time and 2) There has been no de facto rule of Taiwan from the mainland for over a century. 3) The post-WWII return was to the “Repubic of China,” which government still exists and resides in Taiwei

To just say “it’s an internal matter” as if that settles it and there’s no more to be said is tremendously facile.

Now having said all of this: DtC, you’re completely off-base in your OP. I would dearly love to see an independant Taiwan, and when that day comes, it will be the end of a truly inspring national journey. But while Chen Shui-Bian is one of my personal heroes, he’s not perfect, and he might push things too far. He has always said – long before he was president – that the way to independance would be through a national referendum. It is not hard to see the implications of him pushing to have a first-ever referendum on anything, nor for advocating a new constitution.

Taiwan has every moral right to be independant, and any administration that abandoned them would be beneath contempt. At the same time, as the vast majority of Taiwanese will tell you, it’s not worth risking mass destruction to get on paper what they already have in reality. A war there has every possibility of leading to all sorts of disasters, as was discussed in the other thread.

Was W overly blunt? Sure, but that’s just him. He’ll be the same way the next time the PRC starts making noises. In it’s substance this is the only thing he can do, and it’s the same message the Us has been every few months for 25 years: Shut up, the both of you.

63

My suspicion is that the administration’s stance is part of a bargaining deal that includes Chinese support with the North Korean situation.

64

I think it’s a lot simpler. Bush is merely emphasizing that neither side should do anything that risks war.

Taiwan can have its de facto independence, it would just be wise for them to not go and do anything overtly stupid unless they are prepared to defend themselves without our help. Once they reach that point(they may already be there, but it’s a very near thing if they are), it’s none of our business. But as long as American butts are on the line for them, we do have the right to make recommendations and urge restraint.

65

Actually, it was 1885, but China had control over Taiwan on and off for centuries (competing with various European powers). The “distinct dialect” is Fukienese, which is the dialect of Chinese that the was brought over with the Chinese immigrants in the 17th century onwards-- most of whom came from Fukien (or Fujian) provence on the mainland.

Personally, I would like to see Taiwan as an independent country. But to deny that it was not historically part of China is simply not true.

66

Correct and I beg pardon. 1895 was when it went to the Japanese.

**

I’m well aware of the origins of the dialect. My point in bringing it up was just part of pointing out that there are in fact distinct cultural reasons why many if not most Taiwanese think of themselves as a “country”

And I did not “deny that it was not historically part of China” (I presume you meant “deny that it was historically part of China”) what I said was it was “never an integral part of mainland China for any significant period of time,” and compared it to Guam. A better analogy might have been Puerto Rico. Were the US to cease active governance over Puerto Rico for a century, and then come back in 2104 and lay claim to ownership of the island against the will of the populace with threats of violence,
I suspect the world would oppose it vigorously, and rightly so. I mean, why not just go even further back and say the Chinese kicked out the Dutch? Or that the aborigines should be in charge?

China has a legal claim, sure; I would also expect a century of precedent would count for something and that there is a statute of limitations on teritorial claims. IANAL.

Saying that the US should not intervene regardless is certainly a defensible position, though not one I share. But reducing it to “it’s an internal matter” and leaving it at that is a simplistic understanding of a complex situation.

67

Age Quod Agis – what’s the translation of that? I never tood latin. Anyway, you write:

I think the way I’d look at this type of slippery slope argument is that I was inviting DtC to put forth principles that allow us to distinguish between two circumstances or explain why we don’t slide all the way down the slope.

D the C, I picked 1935 more or less out of a hat. But, Hitler had already instituted the purge of the SA, proving that he was willing to engage in extrajudicial mass murder. But we can pick other examples. Would an Iraqi patriot or Chilean patriot have been justified in killing Saddam Hussein or General Pinochet while they were still in power and responsible for regimes of terror, torture, and killing?
Would an American slave trying to make an escape, confronted by a bounty hunter intent on his capture and reenslavement, be justified in killing the bounty hunter?

My apologies for the thread hi-jack, but (this is going to sound odd) if D the C is an advocate of total non-violence, his opinion on the justice or non-justice of one war versus another is pretty irrelevant.
It’s like asking someone who believes all sex is wrong their opinion on the morality of oral sex vs. the missionary position.

68

When did I say I was an advocate of “total non-violence?”

I am opposed to aggressive (non-defensive) wars.
I believe that the US should honor its own treaties.
I don’t believe the invasion of Iraq was justified either legally or morally.
I know that GWB lied about his own motivations for the invasion.
I believe that the US should support Taiwanese independence and quit selling out to China.

69

Taiwan is independent and the US supports that independence.

We only “sell out” in the symbolism of it, not the substance. Apparently this symbolism is important enough for the Chinese to fight over. It’s a very small thing for us to concede.

I think it was wrong to make Taiwan give up it’s UN seat though. That was a major sellout.

70

>> I am opposed to aggressive (non-defensive) wars.

I agree

>> I believe that the US should honor its own treaties.

I agree

>> I don’t believe the invasion of Iraq was justified either legally or morally.

I agree

>> I know that GWB lied about his own motivations for the invasion.

I believe you are probably right although there is the possibility that he really is a bumbling, incompetent, idiot. Whether he is evil or stupid and incompetent the consequences are the same so it really does not matter.

>> I believe that the US should support Taiwanese independence and quit selling out to China.

I disagree for various reasons. The most practical is that it would likely result in a catastrophic bloodbath of which both Chinas and the rest of the world would come out losers. friends do not encourage friends to fight but to seek peaceful solutions. Also, it is a principle that the statu quo should not be changed by force. The present situation is the best we can hope for for now. Supporting independence is pretty much, in effect, supporting Chinese attack. Let the situation remain as it is and as China develops economically and politically they will be in a better position to resolve the matter peacefully.

The Taiwan issue is complex and there are plenty of reasons on both sides. This is not a matter of right or wrong but a matter of finding something which will work out.

It is demagoguical (if such word exists) to defend every single person’s or people’s right to unlimited autodetermination. No such thing exists. We can only respect the statu quo and demand that any changes to it be done by agreement and peacefully. No part of a nation enjoys the right to unilaterally secede or dictate terms to the rest of the nation.

71

I admit you guys have made me think more about this Taiwan situation. It’s not as simplistic as I first though it was. Thank you for the responses.

72

It’s been a while but I think you will find that Taiwan walked out of the UN. They were not kicked out. Rather Taiwan (Republic of China) basically gave an ultimatum that if China was allowed to join the UN, then Taiwan would leave because the Republic of China in Taiwan was the only legitimate government for all of China.

Do a google.

That is one of the reasons why Taiwan does not currently enjoy de jeure independance.

73

“Sometimes I think the Teeming Millions have the historical sense of tree shrews.” – Cecil Adams

Does anybody posting to this thead have any clue what the U.S. position with regard to China was in the period 1935-1972? I do; I lived through the last half of it.

With regard to the history of Taiwan:
Before 1626 – Malayo-Polynesian aborigines with no central government. China aware of its existence but no claims or colonization.
1626-1646 – Dutch and Spanish colonize, for trading purposes
1646-1661 – Dutch throw out Spanish, claim island
1661-1683 – Independent under Koxinga, warlord loyal to Ming Dynasty (which has been defeated on mainland by Manchus)
1683 – Manchus defeat Koxinga, claim island
1796 – Manchus begin colonization efforts
1886-1895 – Taiwan a province of Manchu China
1895-1945 – Overseas province of greater Japan
1945-1949 – Province of Kuomintang Republic of China
1949-present – Last surviving piece of KMT Republic

Between 1949 and 1971, the U.S., strongly anti-Communist, took the perspective that the Taipei government was the sole legitimate government of China, and recognized it as such. When Nixon recognized Red China (as it was known then), he withdrew formal diplomatic recognition from Taiwan, but kept informal consular relations with them.

Please note that they have been a province of mainland China for a grand total of fourteen years, scattered across history – one year fewer than they were a Dutch colony. (How about Coldfire as viceroy of Taiwan? ;))

Claiming an area with historical precedent does not mean you have a legal right to it – that was settled in the First Gulf War, back in 1991 (remember that Kuwait was a province of Iraq, according to Saddam?)

I find it ironic that only the Liberals are claiming that Taiwan has a right to separate existence – though we’re in good company, given that Dean Acheson was the man who first promulgated the defend-Taiwan policy, with the support of John Foster Dulles.

But if Bush takes the attitude that the U.S. should support Peking in its claims to Taiwan, he has forfeited any moral claims he might have on historical conservatism – he’s proven that he is driven by exclusively pragmatic motives.

Somehow, this doesn’t surprise me.

74

If monkeys fly out of my ass, my proctologist has forfeited any medical claims he might have had at his admitting hospital. That would also not surprise me.

But Bush didn’t do any such thing, nor is there any indication that he will (despite his family’s longstanding personal relationship with the Reds, in particular some of the younger (OK, less-old) ones). All he did is restate the long-standing policy of the United States. The reason it’s coming off as somehow “anti-Taiwan” or “pro-China” is that this is the first time it’s been Taiwan who has been the provocateur. Previously, it’s been China rumbling about things it had no business rumbling about.

This is going to get more complicated in the future as pro-independence forces in Taiwan get bolder. Despite that most Taiwanese prefer the status quo. There’s no question that things were easier back when the KMT was running the show there – they bought into the one China. The legislature even met once a year, with 80-year old former representatives of Chinese provinces showing up and alleging to still represent those provinces despite the communist “occupation” of them. With one side recognzing the fiction as a fiction, things will have to change.

But they don’t have to change today. The world’s a little busy, heck the region’s a little busy to deal with this stuff right now.

Also, a correction of an error that’s occurred a few times in this thread. Nixon did not end diplomatic relations with Taiwan and pick them up with China. Carter did, in 1979.

75

In case you want to see the relevant paragraphs, here they are for the Shanghai Communique

The two sides reviewed the long-standing serious disputes between China and the United States. The Chinese reaffirmed its position: The Taiwan question is the crucial question obstructing the normalization of relations between China and the United States; the Government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government of China; Taiwan is a province of China which has long been returned to the motherland; the liberation of Taiwan is China’s internal affair in which no other country has the right to interfere; and all U.S. forces and military installations must be withdrawn from Taiwan. The Chinese Government firmly opposes any activities which aim at the creation of “one China, one Taiwan,” “one China, two governments,” “two Chinas,” an “independent Taiwan” or advocate that “the status of Taiwan remains to be determined.”

The U.S. side declared: The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. With this prospect in mind, it affirms the ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all U.S. forces and military installations from Taiwan. In the meantime, it will progressively reduce its forces and military installations on Taiwan as the tension in the area diminishes.

the link is here: http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/15/documents/us.china/