Asian Air 
Imagemap

GOLDSEA | ASIAMS.NET | ASIAN AMERICAN ISSUES


TAIWAN INDEPENDENCE
OR UNIFICATION?

(Updated Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008, 05:55:04 PM)

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.]
"'them' did not carpet bomb corea until nothing was left of it. not to mention what they intended to do with nukes on the corean penninsula. yes, they had every intention of turning it into a nuclear wasteland. 'them' do not stick their noses along with their arses into other people's civil wars. "

I don't exactly like the foreign-policy of the United States (including many other things that I don't like about them, although even in the US there are some good things/politicians/lobby groups/laws - maybe they're a minority but they are), but to the point - don't you think that if no one intervened in the Korean War that North Korea would have won and you wouldn't be in the US at all but would be sitting somewhere in the (unified) Korean peninsula right now maybe being hungry and/or serving in their (communist) military? I think they say that North Korea right now is the only country in the world with severe Stalinist-like policies. I don't think that the people there are genuinely happy. Also, I read somewhere - don't remember where but you can probably find it in some historical encyclopedia - that North Korea initially invaded South Korea after a certain US Statesman at the time (again, don't remember his name) declared that the US will not support South Korea in case of invasion by the North. (Of course, they did later support South Korea, maybe they changed their policies or the statement was a misunderstanding on some part). But I guess the point is that the North Koreans thought that because the US won't support their S.K. counterparts, they can fight a war against them because in that case they might 1)be more likely to win this war 2)have less of an opponent to fight, or maybe both of these criteria. I've heard about a similar scenario once, in a case involving Saddam Hussain and the invasion of Kuwait. When I was in my final year of High School, I took a Politics Class and part of our studies was to conduct an Independent Study Unit relating to a particular issue in politics. There was a guy who did a research about Saddam Hussain and wrote a "very well-written argumentative essay" (the teacher labelled it something like that) in which he was basically standing up for Saddam Hussain, and one of the reasons he used was that before Saddam invaded Kuwait in (1990? 1991?), he phoned the US Secretary of State at the time, and asked her what the US would do in case of an invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. She is said to have responded with something like "this is an Arab-to-Arab problem. The US will not get involved with ... ". I don't really have the exact quotes but that's an approximation of what she supposedly said. I don't know how accurate that is (though I believe that it's quite possible), but if it did happen, then I guess it's kind of similar scenario to that involving the beginning of the Korean War.

kimchi devil, I think you blame the clash of world systems and thus by extension the whole world for the Korean Civil War, but don't you think that certain conditions that existed in that country previously have also contributed to the military conflict in the 1950's? I.E., I heard that there were some class conflicts in Korea even before WWII, which might have contributed to the formation of two opposing political groups. I don't really remember, but the logic was somthing like the poor people were not happy with the conditions they were living in, they were also not happy witht the rich people, and because of the traditional philosophy that was present and held its influence in Korea, opposition to authority was not endorsed very much. Therefore opposition to the rich people (who were presumably the law-makers) was not encouraged; this caused bitterness in some segments of the population and eventually brought about the formation of various differing political groups, among them the Korean Socialists. I don't know how accurate this is either, but if it's true, then I think this might have been a legitimate cause that also contributed to the development of the Korean War. I mean, if the Koreans had a unified political agenda at the end of WWII, they might not have been split up into two different political entities but would have rather remained a one unified state, wouldn't they? I don't know, I'm not an expert on Korean history, but if some of these theories that I described here are true, I think it is unjust of you to blame the whole world and make it seem like they are the villains. Yes, there might have been unjustice done in the Korean War, in fact probably there was, but I don't think that it was purely the fault of the foreigners and foreign powers what happenned. Global politics is not very simple.

Something more about the Soviet Union. You say that the World should thank the Soviet Union for ending the WWII. I think that's true, but I think Western Powers and leaders (especially Sir Winston Churchill of Britain) also contributed to the fall of the Nazi Empire (eventually). It was a joined effort, I don't know who did more and who did less, I guess what's important was the joined co-operation and collaboration by the anti-Nazi forces - without it, it would be much harder to win. By the way, you should know that Stalin also made a pact with Hitler initially, and it was also about mutual in-action in exchange for the guarantee of territorry. Hmm, interesting.

kimchi devil, may I ask you what's your take on this (Korean) issue? Would you care to elaborate it for me? I don't know how well you are informed in this, but I am quite interested in what you have to say.

And now that I was writing to you, I missed the evening news... lol, see what you did :-)
eastern-european girl    Sunday, October 27, 2002 at 19:32:15 (PST)    [64.228.102.62]

[Future discussion on Corea should be posted on Corean Unification page. --Ed]
huu67,

The West is overly rich/powerful?

Apparently by taking land and resources from others left and right for hundreds of years, then acting like this legacy has nothing to do with where they are today. unless you think they're somehow indigenous to north america and australia.

And regarding those Mao-mobiles... Yes the United States should be thankful of the Japanese for getting them out of the smogmobile business. Besides, even lawn-mowers generate more pollutants (5x?) than today's cars, and the US has plenty of those.

Regarding your reply to SOG, add this among others:

'them' also did not drop a nuclear bomb, or more precisely TWO, on innocent civilians (read= men, women, and children) then have the gall to say something idiotically stupid like "uh, we did it to save lives." 'them' did not carpet bomb corea until nothing was left of it. not to mention what they intended to do with nukes on the corean penninsula. yes, they had every intention of turning it into a nuclear wasteland. 'them' do not stick their noses along with their arses into other people's civil wars. 'them' do not push their military into foreign lands to solve 'them's' drug problemo. 'them' does not establish "democracy" after shoving everyone else out of the way, oh wait... israel does, but israel's not 'them' are they? 'them' does not see a nation's rightful sovereignty as a threat to 'them' and "them's way of life." and furthermore 'them' does not need to thank 'us' for squat.

and on a side note, I think America should be thanking Russia for saving the world, during WWII, which is exactly what they did.

the more I think about US involvement in the far east, the less I like it.
kimchi devil    Saturday, October 26, 2002 at 11:34:57 (PDT)    [64.12.96.13]
Here's an article on Taiwanese businessman doing business in China.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.11/hotzone.html

It tells of their folly and struggles doing business there.

Boy! I think the one groping the hostess is my Brother's boss from Taiwan. The impression I got from my brother because he is working for one is that his boss is usually an independant one or two man company and that most of them smoke and drink, gamble and go to those karoke bars because either they themselves are either overworked or can't compete enough. These little guy companies are the ones that try to corner a market with whatever means necessary. Everyday is a survival for them. Like playing russian roulette and not knowing if you pass or fail everyday. What a life for them! No wonder many of them act assholish and arrogant to others.
Taiwan woos    Friday, October 25, 2002 at 14:02:42 (PDT)    [199.174.224.226]
Huu

If you are going to be an arrogant **** just dont post to me ok. I do not appreciate your superiority complex. Pride comes before a fall. Trust me buddy, I have fallen many a times because of pride. Save yourself a lot of pain and just be humble. Treat others how you want to be treated, look at the big picture dont focus on the little insignificant things.
SOG    Friday, October 25, 2002 at 13:00:10 (PDT)    [128.193.5.190]
Kimchi,
Advanced countries know pollution can't go on forever. 10 luxury cars over here create less toxic fumes than one Mao-mobile. The West is overly rich/powerful? Yes, that's because they had the foresight to advance as a whole, not build their own little despotic empires.
Foreign policy. There's a difference, true allies and useful allies.

SOG,
US comes first. "Them" supports just as many "dictators" as we do, and "them" doesn't support free speech and personal freedoms. "Them" doesn't have laws to protect them's minorities. "Them" would beat us down if "them" was ahead. Does "them" give foreign aid and help poorer countries? The world looks to US to keep the peace, not "them". "Them" didn't help Germany, Taiwan, Corea, Japan and Singapore become rich. Fortunately, we're not "them".

AC,
I'm white? Boy, that came as a surprise.
Why do you think a traitor like Clinton is so great? He allows China to launch satellites with sensitive technology on them (yeah, like they're not going to require shipments in pieces for easier reverse engineering) and he takes bribes from China during his campaigns. True, every other president takes bribes from Israel, but alteast they're sort of on our side.
Ask any non-redneck and they'll tell you the Japanese, then the Germans, make the best cars. That was then, this is now.
No reactor? What did the U.S. contractors just stop work on when N.Corea confessed? Maybe China can play it and say U.S. agression forced them to fund a nuclear program to feed their people.
Life in the west is pretty much all the same, whether north, south or across the atlantic. As much as I like the U.S., I'd rather live in Canada. Poor countries aren't as jealous of us. Besides, the Chinalovers should like Canada, our politicians have their heads so far up China's ass that...
huu76    Thursday, October 24, 2002 at 18:52:07 (PDT)    [64.231.100.38]

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS