TAIWAN INDEPENDENCE
OR UNIFICATION?

(Updated )

he most pressing Asian foreign policy issue currently faced by the U.S. is the Taiwan question. The email we receive in reaction to our articles relating to this issue suggests that it's an emotional one for many of our readers. Perhaps one reason for the emotion is the fact that the issue isn't amenable to an easy or simple solution.
     The first historical mention of Taiwan appears to have been when Portugese traders found it to be a resting place on their journey to Japan and named it Isla Formosa. Beijing's claim to Taiwan dates back to the 16th century when a Chinese general fought off the Portugese to claim the island for the emperor. In 1895 the expansion-minded Japanese annexed it after defeating China in a war on the Corean peninsula. China briefly reestablished sovereignty over Taiwan following Japan's defeat in August of 1945.
     At the time the official government of China, as recognized by most nations of the world, was under the control of the Kuomingtang headed by Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek. He was engaged in a desperate war against Mao Tse-tung's peasant army. Despite billions of dollars of aid by the U.S. based mainly on intensely partisan reporting by Henry Luce's Time/Life empire, the spectacularly corrupt Chiang lost that war and fled to Taiwan with 2.5 million followers.
     He established the present government of Taiwan on December 7, 1949 and proclaimed it the sole legitimate government of all China. Mao made the same claim. The claims competed until 1971 when it became clear to most of the world that Mao's was more persuasive. Taiwan was kicked out of the UN. The Beijing government took its place as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, a seat given in recognition of China's role in fighting Japan in World War II.
     Mired in its own misguided war in Vietnam, and intensely fearful of anything red, the U.S. was one of the last nations to recognize the legitimacy of Mao's government. In 1972 Richard Nixon made his historic journey to Beijing. In 1976 the U.S. took the next step by recognizing the People's Republic as China's sole legitimate government. It began pursuing the "One China, One Taiwan" policy under which official diplomatic contacts were exclusively with Beijing but continued to sell billions of dollars a year of fighter jets, helicopters, tanks and missiles to Taiwan to help defend against a possible Chinese effort to refunify by force.
     In 1997 President Clinton declared a "strategic partnership" with Beijing over intense Republican objections. It was an astute recognition of the fact that China's 1.2 billion people must be accorded a central place in U.S. foreign policy. But the historic, moral and economic ties that bind the U.S. to Taiwan's 23 million people stand squarely in the way of cutting off arms sales and renouncing the pact under which the U.S. obliged itself to come to Taiwan's defense in the event of attack by China. That U.S. pledge and continuing arms sales continue to inflame Beijing to periodic bursts of violent anti-U.S. rhetoric.
     Taiwan has been a domocracy since 1989 when it legalized opposition parties. It held its first democratic presidential elections in 1990. Lee Teng-hui handily won to keep the presidency which he had originally gained in 1988. Lee won again in 1996. Since 1997 he began efforts to warm up relations with Beijing by agreeing to enter into negotiations under a "One-China" framework with an eye toward eventual reunification. Beijing's leaders continued their highly successful campaign of pressuring diplomatic partners into severing ties with Taiwan. China even raised hell when Lee made a semi-surreptitious trip to New York in 1997. Since then China has scared neighborning nations like the Philippines into not allowing Lee to enter. As of 1999 Taiwan's diplomatic allies number about 18 out of about 220 nations on earth. All are tiny, impoverished Central American, African and Pacific Island nations that appreciate Taiwan's generous aid packages. Pago Pago is considered a major ally.
     Feisty Lee Teng-hui launched his own guerilla offensive in July, 1999 by declaring over German radio that Taiwan was in fact a separate state and would negotiate with Beijing on an equal footing. That sent Beijing into a tizzy. It fired off bombastic threats to take Taiwan by force and to annhilate the U.S. Navy if it intervenes. On October 18 during his British visit Chinese President Jiang Zemin assumed a softer, more relaxed tone in telling a London newspaper that China would be peacefully reunited with Taiwan under a one-nation two-systems formula by the middle of the next century. One might have expected Lee to have been relieved by that statement. Instead, he brushed it aside as "a hoax". China should try instead to set a timetable for its democratization as that was the only way to ensure reunification, sneered Lee's Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi. Most polls show that a clear majority of Taiwanese prefer to maintain the status quo indefinitely rather than moving toward unification.
     Beijing's reunification mandate appears based on the idea that in winning the mainland, the Chinese people had rejected the "criminal" Kuomingtang and its right to rule any part of China. It also sees Taiwan as a galling symbol of the division wrought and preserved by western imperialists -- namely, the U.S. -- seeking to enjoy global hegemony at the expense of Chinese dignity.
     Meanwhile the U.S. remains on the hook to defend Taiwan and sell it arms though doing so keeps its relations with a quarter of humanity rocky and on edge. Under its current policy the U.S. is the asbestos firewall that keeps friction between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait from igniting into war.
     Should the U.S. continue alienating Beijing to help Taiwan protect its independence or improve relations with China by pressuring Taiwan to reunite?
The fact that there is a passport that is internationally recognized for Taiwan says volumes.

Taiwan is already an independent nation. All it takes is a signature. The breakaway happened 50 years ago, China should have done something about it then. Whining about it being a "rogue province" is just that - whining.

China's leaders just want a militarily strategic outpost on an island - that's the long and the short of why they clamour so badly for Taiwan. They can argue idealogy and culturalism all they like...

Same as the USA and its idea to invade Iraq. It's not about "Saddam being Evil"... its about getting a US friendly (or hell, an outpost of the USA govt) there to make things easier militarily.

The way I see it, the USA and China are going to lock horns ANYWAY.... so might as well get it over with... LOL
B.E.Verins beverins@aol.com    Wednesday, July 31, 2002 at 09:15:16 (PDT)


A/HL Grad,

Oops logical error

So most elegantly put.

Let Ip equal UR be denoted as T

If Ip, then I
If UR, then R.

so

If T, then I
if T, then R

Hence, if T, then I or R.

Also (I or R) = IR has a subset (I and R) = ir.

So, if T, then ir.
AC Dropout    Wednesday, July 31, 2002 at 06:57:03 (PDT)
A/HL Grad,

I. Issue of AC Dropout ROC/PRC

axiom 1.0 - Enlighten gov't refute absolutism and monarchs. John Locke

axiom 1.1 - Individuals must be given the ability to express the inner self. Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Corolary 1.0 - USA is pluralistic society founded on the principles of Utopian philosophers.

Theorum 1.0 - Pro-PRC (I) elements in the set of USA (P) are still contained within the set of USA. Ip

postulate 2.0 - Let the set Mainlander (M) contain the elements of those who are descentant of elements within the 5000 year history China.

axiom 2.1 - The set ROC (R) populace contains elements which is a subset contained in the set of Mainlander. RM

axiom 2.2 - The elements not of Mainlander set within the set of ROC populace, if and only if, they are in the set of aboriginal descent (A). Ar

axiom 2.3 - ROC became pluralistic in 1987.

axiom 2.4 - ROC set contains the subset that is status quo (S). SR

axiom 2.5 - ROC set contains the subset that is pro-independence (X). XR

axiom 2.6 - ROC set contains the subset that is pro-unification (U). UR

corolary 2.0 - An element can be contained within the set of ROC and USA. Based on corolary 1.0 and axiom 2.1.

Proof: Hence being pro-PRC and contain within the set of USA (P) and ROC (R) does not satisfy the paradox of an element of a set, if and only if, the element is not a member of that set. This element is denoted as AC Dropout within the set Ip unison UR.
AC Dropout    Wednesday, July 31, 2002 at 06:36:07 (PDT)
AC Dropout never served in the Taiwan military therefore he should not hold a Taiwan passport period.
Asian Sting    Tuesday, July 30, 2002 at 19:27:07 (PDT)
A/HL Grad,

"don't construct an argument so weakly as to let others have a easy shot at taking it down. That's not a sign of critical thinking."

Stick to the points at hand instead of taking cheap shot at me or China. And perhaps you might learn something.

Your style of writing is not reflective of anyone who has taken a critical analysis or logics course. I do not believe you are ready for that type of discussion with me yet.

AC Dropout    Tuesday, July 30, 2002 at 15:47:54 (PDT)
ka,

You think communism was the predominent factor in impeding Chinese economic growth. Jeez lousie you've been way too educated/brain washed by western history books.

Look up Opium War, Open Door Policy, Annex of HK, Annex of Macau, Annex of Mongolia, Annex of Tibet, Manchurian-Japan Conflict, WWII, China Civil war, Sino-Soviet conflict.

I think you will begin to see a pattern of why China did not modernize smoothly and quickly.
AC Dropout    Tuesday, July 30, 2002 at 15:41:23 (PDT)
SOG,

China version of communism is working very well for their society right now. I think it has a little bit more than just recognizing a market economy is at work. A lot of effort has been put to ensure stability and progress in that country for the past 3 decades now.
AC Dropout    Tuesday, July 30, 2002 at 14:06:20 (PDT)
A/HL Grad,

And please in your infinite wisdom can someone who is pro-China not hold a USA and ROC passport. That is a very provincial view of the world. Please walk the earth a little more and become cosmopolitian. Citizenship and opinion are independent factors. Your view of the world falls under fanatism like McCarthism. No one who believes in communism can be an American. That is foolish and deterimental to a pluralistic society.

Also what do you think the "C" in ROC stands for? China, last time I checked. You really need to study up on modern Chinese history to understand why there are Chinese on Taiwan. Only 15% of the population immigrated to Taiwan after 1945. There are about 1/3 of the population that believe in eventual unification. Many of those 1/3 are not direct descent of those 15%.

My views are shaped by my experiences. I took the money I made in the USA and expanded into ROC and PRC. I was apprehensive about the PRC when I started. I was exposed to so many PRC intellectuals in exile when I was growing up, I admit I had a negative bias about the PRC. But after studying there and opening an office there. I can honest say there is not much difference than ROC. Authoritarian gov't, messy traffic, and rapid changes.

I'm sorry but I really have to laugh out loud. I insult by calling you a 下 流 and 走 狗. Not including the fact I alluded to the fact that you were illiterate in Chinese. And you are all happy I used an honorific of the word you. You are a fool. You would not make it one day in a country club, if you don't understand the double edge meaning languages contain. And now you know a little bit more about Chinese culture. Giving face while passing an insult is very common in Chinese language.

If the Taiwan gov't did not practice censorship, how did the "white terror" occur. How did the gov't using liable laws shut down a contraversial magazine 2 years about, if censorship does not exist.

If there are not millions, then how many expat are moving to China to conduct business and study Chinese, it is definitely more than one. There is a recent report on how the language of Chinese is becoming a popular second language globally.

If the PRC cannot take on the USA, what's with all the fuss with the 2 report the USA gov't recently release about China being a strategic threat. We the USA no longer believe China is a backwatered military threat. Our government is sitting around comtemplating will it be 2030 or 2050 when they over take us economically and military.

Taiwan society is so desperate now, the President ask business people to move factories to south east asia instead of china, so not to speed up economic dependence on China. They're factoring the 2008 Olympics in Beijing as a reason why they need to beef up ROC military. Because they beleive PRC might attack after the dousing of the Olympic flame.

I have no illusion that China is still developing, which is also a boon for their society. But I have already put my money where my mouth is.
AC Dropout    Tuesday, July 30, 2002 at 14:03:04 (PDT)
Jing Cha,

If you lived in the PRC longer than I have, than that means you have not lived in the USA at all.

Let me explain to you what is going on in the USA since you've never lived here.

The people of the USA are ashamed of our police brutality in CA and in NY. The people are ashamed of our leaders who were CEO of public companies that cooked the books. The people in the USA are ashamed our professional baseball players can't finish an all star game.
AC Dropout    Tuesday, July 30, 2002 at 13:01:46 (PDT)

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS