Asian Air 
Imagemap

GOLDSEA | ASIAMS.NET | ASIAN AMERICAN ISSUES


TAIWAN INDEPENDENCE
OR UNIFICATION?

(Updated Wednesday, Jan 22, 2025, 06:38:55 AM)

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?

This interactive article is closed to new input.
Discussions posted during the past year remain available for browsing.

Asian American Videos


Films & Movies Channel


Humor Channel


Identity Channel


Vocals & Music Channel


Makeup & Hair Channel


Intercultural Channel

CONTACT US | ADVERTISING INFO

© 1996-2013 Asian Media Group Inc
No part of the contents of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission.

WHAT YOU SAY

[This page is closed to new input. --Ed.]
A/HL Grad,

"Gone on a business trip for a few days, but still the same old PRC propaganda here."

Ah well. My number's up, so I'm not sweatin' it, myself. Catch ya on the flip side, and check six.
Apache Driver    Friday, September 13, 2002 at 20:06:36 (PDT)    [24.44.167.125]
Editors:

Actually, Dropout probably started the path with his condescending insults on calling people uneducated (compared to his mere BA), dumb (as if he's a genius himself), and calling anyone who doesn't support the PRC a banana. Show us where we hurled the first insult at Mr. Dropout...

Now we may have attacked his opinions are pure PRC propaganda and lies, but the personal attacks started with ACD...
A/HL Grad    Friday, September 13, 2002 at 19:22:56 (PDT)    [128.12.131.120]

[This is the last few seconds we will devote to this issue: the personal tone originated from the anti-"chicom" camp. --Ed]
Current political commentary feel that Beijing will use USA 'Attack Iraq' interest to make the USA distance themselves from ROC, in order to gain China support or non-opposition to the USA initiative in the UN on the Iraq issue.
Looks like Iraq could be a catalyst to a new phase in the ROC, PRC, USA relationship.

So you think Jiang is going to have a Kobe steak or Lamb chops with Bush at his ranch next month.
AC Dropout    Friday, September 13, 2002 at 14:03:29 (PDT)    [24.90.98.143]

"The Hai-Pao, one of Taiwan's top-of-the-line battle submarines, is cramped, underpowered and, by today's standards of warfare, about as lethal as a wind-up bathtub toy."

http://www.time.com/time/asia/news/magazine/0,9754,107318,00.html

Yes boys, the taiwanese navy is pathetic. America agreed to sell her 8 non exsistent diseal subs which germany and netherlands refuse to build for taiwan. The taiwanese people only gave the chinese a oppertunity to further their own military. This year china anounced russia will provide her with guess how many super kilo subs? 8. what a coincidence. Only differnece is, russia will deliver.

lets not forget the two move imporved sovermnay dystroyers china will recieve also.

Yes yes, the newest update, china anounces to buy a third batch of 38 of the worlds most capable strike aircraft the su-30mkk.

lol.

yes some say the taiwanese has a advantage over the PRC navy. umm ooookay. But that dont bother me. Let the taiwanese belive in their invincibility. Like I says before. pride comes before a fall.
SOG    Friday, September 13, 2002 at 13:02:02 (PDT)    [128.193.169.87]
lol. Good job editors. I really do hate to insult people. My doctrine is the same as the chinese nuclear doctrine. We do not fire unless fired upon.

Apache

Dont worry bud. we'll settle this ourselves on 10-17-02. I'll give you a generous oppertunity to exact your anger.

"For the host countries of such extended military bases, such bases are beginning to be viewed as incompatible with a desire to remain neutral in a conflict that is between the Chinese."

No sane asian country would want to have a tumble with the PRC. They would get their clocks cleaned including japan. Under the japanese constitution their military force is barred from using force to reslove problems. Many asian countries hate japan, especially koreans, chinese and some islanders. North korea would gladly redirect their fire power at japan rather than south korea. Ditto for south korea and china. Russia herself dont like the japanese too much.

Taiwanese

Hey you guys should learn your history. Chiang hai chek was a traitor to china. Case in point, the warlords in china consolidated their powers to fight japan and made chiang their leader. The japnese emperor did not authorize the blitz attack on chinese manchuria. The chinese had overwhelming technological and numerical superiority to the japanese base on china. They could have easily defeated the invading japanese force. The suicidal group of renegade japanese military leaders were ready to kill themselves if their surprise attack failed. But chaing actually barred the chinese troops from attacking. Leading japan to seize many huge military factories and hundreds of hi-tech planes made in germany. Ahhh the sorrow. They did unspeakable things to the chinese people. That is why chiang lost the civil war. Please know your history and know what your leaders did to humiliate the chinese and yourselves.
SOG    Friday, September 13, 2002 at 11:17:14 (PDT)    [128.193.169.87]
"Prickly cuss, aintcha?"

Where inequity lies in plain view? Absolutely and unrepentantly.

"As a matter of fact, you and AH/L were the first to start hurling insults, subtle and baldfaced, as you will see if you care to go back a ways."

Dude, you need to recheck the message traffic. I will not comment on what came before my arrival, but SOG was the fellow who initiated such things. To wit:

By SOG, posted Sunday, August 11, 2002 at 14:45:55 (PDT)

first of all even if you are apache pilot, they are no SOF. You are just a grunt. Your logic is so off base it's pathetic. No point in talking to arrogent white trash like you.

As has been later established, I'm Sing Chinese. Regardless of this fact, it's clear the SOG's first response was immediate, ad hominem attack. Not to mention taking an outlandish, utter racist position on the matter that, had I been a white guy, would have been needlessly inflammatory and hardly approached a cogent rebuttal of my position. But…no shut down.

My response, Monday, August 12, 2002 at 12:05:34 (PDT)

"As far as my race goes, it should generally be irrelevant. If I'm white, black, Hispanic, or a quadruple amputee from downtown Riyadh, it shouldn't matter...well, to most people, anyway.

You ain't got what it takes, laddie. I guess you learned most of your military maneuverings from episodes of GI Joe."

Polite? Perhaps not. But clearly, I addressed the situ. As later discovered, SOG has no military background.

Inarguably, he is a hate-monger and ethnic supremacist.

For the record, I recall receiving no admonitions to tone down the rhetoric.

"Goldsea encourages lively, full-throated debate. That objective requires a firm but gradual hand. If you dont' like it, look for a forum where you can maintain a snide tone without drawing fire. Just don't try to turn this into a discussion about discussions. That kind of bs is slapped down inside of two rounds. Capiche? --Ed"

Sorry, the evidence does not prove out this position. The reasons for that are legion, I'm sure. I will not speculate on them here.

Also, the evidence does not necessarily support that I "maintain a snide tone without drawing fire." You'll see that I was actively opposed to such racial epithets and generally uninformed meanderings, only to suffer more backlash. Once this happened, hell yes, I struck back. It might be simple oversight on my part, but I do not recall seeing any cautionary words being disseminated to any party.

Either be fair and impartial, Ed, or step the hell back and watch the flames. By my count, you had almost a month to shut people down. I recognize it's your way or the highway, but I'm not lovin' what I see here in this regard.

Humbly submitted,
Apache Driver    Friday, September 13, 2002 at 10:18:23 (PDT)    [24.44.167.125]

[In deference to the generally high tone of your previous posts, we deviate from our stated intentions to give you this final say. We stand by our position and policy, however. So ends this discussion on discussions. --Ed]
What SOG has to say is really nothing new. U.S. Air Force Major Mark A. Stokes has written a report in 1999 called the Stokes report that describes the strategy of taking out air fields, naval bases, and key command support facilities with short range missiles as the most likely scenerio of an attack on Taiwan. The idea is that advanced fighter planes are useless without a base to take off or land. Therefore, it is now believed amongst certain military strategists that America's military bases in the Far East have limited value as it could be too easily subjected to conventional missile attacks, and at worst, expose American military personnel to needless casualties. For the host countries of such extended military bases, such bases are beginning to be viewed as incompatible with a desire to remain neutral in a conflict that is between the Chinese.
Stokes Report 1999    Thursday, September 12, 2002 at 23:03:26 (PDT)    [204.31.232.239]
Apache Driver:

Gone on a business trip for a few days, but still the same old PRC propaganda here.

Funny thing about ACD...he made a huge melodrama about having to leave here for an extended period because of commitments to his vast business empire, but is still trolling here for days one end. Must be not that big of a business empire...
A/HL Grad    Thursday, September 12, 2002 at 13:14:24 (PDT)    [171.64.212.159]

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS