|
|
|
|
GOLDSEA |
ASIAMS.NET |
ASIAN AMERICAN ISSUES
TAIWAN INDEPENDENCE
OR UNIFICATION?
(Updated
Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008, 05:55:08 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.
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.]
Jack Lin,
"but they should give us whatever arms we needs under the agreement we have with them."
So what happens when Taiwan no longer serves our US foriegn interest. Will you give the US arms back.
Or what if unification does occur. Will you give the US arms back.
Remember in the end Taiwan is to serve USA's interest. The USA is not really involved to serve Taiwan's interest.
ROC getting the short end of the stick with the USA. Even Bush keeps saying the USA supports the "One China Policy" everytimes he mentions Taiwan.
"People in Taiwan should rule over their own country and their own interests."
But what happens when the majority of people in Taiwan believes their interest are better served with closer ties with the mainland. You're going to use your USA arms and shot them?
So based on your advise. USA should just sell ROC any arms they want and keep out of the Strait Issue.
I think at this rate Lee Deng Hui is going to advise giving all of Taiwan to Japan.
AC Dropout   
Monday, October 07, 2002 at 09:09:04 (PDT)
   [24.90.98.143]
ACD,
"Also on a side note European countries have a lot more middle eastern immigrants than the USA. Perhaps that is why they a slight more adverse to an unproke attack. Since their own constituents might react to that type of action."
That line of reasoning is BS. There are, what, 3 million Muslims in the US? You think the US is somehow impervious to internal attacks from a restless minority?
Apache Driver   
Monday, October 07, 2002 at 08:27:11 (PDT)
   [67.84.132.190]
I'm from Taiwan, and I'm for Taiwan Independence when the time is right. People in Taiwan should rule over their own country and their own interests.
U.S. should never have to fight in place of Taiwanese, but they should give us whatever arms we needs under the agreement we have with them. That's all there is to it.
Jack Lin   
Sunday, October 06, 2002 at 19:29:09 (PDT)
   [4.35.36.177]
Apache Driver,
If European countries aren't living under the hammer, how are we living under Iraq hammer. It's not like Iraq has long range bombers, aircraft carries to reach the USA.
Also on a side note European countries have a lot more middle eastern immigrants than the USA. Perhaps that is why they a slight more adverse to an unproke attack. Since their own constituents might react to that type of action.
Actually the Vice President of Iraq made an interesting comment on CCTV. Basically he stated that the President of USA and Iraq should have a duel. Then the Vice President of USA and Iraq should have a duel. This would greatly reduce the number of casualties in a conflict.
If this resolution makes it through the UN. You know the Vegas adage...don't bet on the white guy.
AC Dropout   
Friday, October 04, 2002 at 09:31:00 (PDT)
   [24.90.98.143]
"I believe nay-sayer to a US unilaterial attack on Iraq have a more multidimensional argument besides casualties."
To no doubt, but they're not the ones sitting in a target reticle, are they? Their (and here I pretty much mean the majority of the European community) aren't the ones living under the hammer.
"They are usually proponents of a multipolar world. So their arguments have economic and political aspects. In other words, what's in it for them."
No different than the US, which has generally been multi-polar in previous times. Of course, 9/11 has changed that, though I wouldn't necessarily say the German or French version of foreign affairs is appropriate, either.
"This is worrisome for any historian with US interest in mind. Because the rise and fall of nations will always occur. However, how can we ensure that the USA will not go through a "regime change" during our forseeable decline in the future, if we go down this path."
LOL...and who's to say it won't go through a "regime change" if we don't? You can't tell the future any better than anyone else.
Apache Driver   
Thursday, October 03, 2002 at 10:58:52 (PDT)
   [67.84.132.190]
SOG,
"Iraq got its ass kicked because of her dumbazz generals."
Yeah, and those guys are still in command.
"They dug their damn tanks into the freakin sand."
So? They reacted to previous encounters with the Iranians and Kurds...even though at one point the Soviets trained them in OMG, they'd never had to use the doctrine in official combat. And since the Iraqi military effectively bled out any sort of creativity through massive centralization, they had no chance.
"They allowed the US to build up 500,000 troops in saudi, Idiot moronic iraqi command thats what lost it for them."
See above.
"Also the open desert didnt have anything to do with US easy duck hunting did it?"
So, you think this is an excuse for the coalition victory? It was good tactics and being able to determine the enemy's intent that won the day, not the terrain. Besides which, the desert was extremely punishing on our equipment--our MH-47 guys were running night and day, and they had to switch out their engines almost every two days. I could fill up a 50 gallon drum with sand from my Little Bird's engine. We had our own operational issues to deal with, so it wasn't as easy as a lot of people think it was.
But I'm not about to apologize or temporize the coalition success over the 4th largest army in the world. They were big, but they sucked. They're still kind of big...and they suck even more now, having trained in a vacuum for almost a decade.
Apache Driver   
Thursday, October 03, 2002 at 10:52:36 (PDT)
   [67.84.132.190]
Jing Cha,
It is belittling, because the USA has the same mentality. Look at our propoganda. Our reaction to call everyone un-american if they don't support our war on Iraq. Our corporate American structure. It is all about the single cell mentality.
In light of these obvious evidence. You still go on about the idealogical arguments about Communism vs. Democracy.
Yes it is racism, you can disguise it like Archie Bunker with ignorance. But the bigotry stands out. You marry Chinese. Yet Chinese are in your opinion ants, borgs...whatever.
How come I would have no idea what racism is? What only black people can understand racism? That's more bigotry right there.
So basically you speak Mandarin like a foreigner and can read kindergartener books in Chinese. Like I said, you can hardly absorb 100% of what is going on around you in Chinese. You are like the immigrants here in USA. 90% of the culture and news just past you by.
First your don't want to identify yourself as a business man, now you do. First your scientist in China on a NSA grant, now your a business man. You own an internet cafe in Shanghai which cost a few grand in USD, that's big business alright. Tell me you get a license after the crackdown on internet cafe industry in China.
Most of the other poster on this site have chosen to ignore you by now. As I was forewarned when I first replied to you. But I enjoy pointing out the ignorance in your postings.
AC Dropout   
Thursday, October 03, 2002 at 09:20:16 (PDT)
   [24.90.98.143]
AC DROPOUT
Anyways how good is your Chinese? How are you sure you are absorbing 100% of China. And not some tour guide version of China.
--------I speak FLUENT Mandarin, and shanghainese (learned in 7 years) Im learning Cantonese and I give myself only 5 years to become fluent in it.
I can read Chinese characters and Japanese. (learned in 7 Years)
Racist Freak?
The only one who ever shouted an epithat was you. I called their mentality to be that of ants and bees and the Borg. SIngle celled hive minds. WTF does that have to do with racism?
You have no idea what racism is so rather than waste time talking to a blind fool who d e s e r t e d the PRC for "whiter" plains, ill refrain from speaking to you. Incredible how you can talk when you probably havent seen a stich of CHina in years. Meanwhile, I the Black buisnessman am on the frontlines.
Jing Cha   
Wednesday, October 02, 2002 at 21:58:47 (PDT)
   [61.175.164.22]
SOG
Every single situation you named is endemic of White racism towards Asians and Blacks. YOU Actually wrote those reasons as if you believe White American people were WRONG for doing that.
In their minds, Asians are inferior and dropping bombs on them is like crushing ants.
Ive been in China now for 2 months. This is my 4th trip here. Ever come to China and see the advertisement here? What do you notice?
Jing Cha   
Wednesday, October 02, 2002 at 21:39:20 (PDT)
   [61.175.164.22]
Apache
Iraq got its ass kicked because of her dumbazz generals.
They dug their damn tanks into the freakin sand.
They allowed the US to build up 500,000 troops in saudi, Idiot moronic iraqi command thats what lost it for them.
Also the open desert didnt have anything to do with US easy duck hunting did it?
SOG   
Wednesday, October 02, 2002 at 12:48:45 (PDT)
   [128.193.5.190]
Apache Driver,
I believe nay-sayer to an USA unilaterial attack on Iraq have a more multidimensional argument besides casualties.
They are usually proponents of a multipolar world. So their arguments have economic and political aspects. In other words, what's in it for them.
This is worrisome for any historian with US interest in mind. Because the rise and fall of nations will always occur. However, how can we ensure that the USA will not go through a "regime change" during our forseeable decline in the future, if we go down this path.
AC Dropout   
Wednesday, October 02, 2002 at 08:39:27 (PDT)
   [24.90.98.143]
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|